alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AGUSTIN R O M ER O-M EZA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-72908 Age n c y No. A075-522-150 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, B EA, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Agustin Rom e ro-M e z a , a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his mo tion to re c o nside r the B IA’ s dismissa l of his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision te rm inating his re m ova l proc e e d ings. W e dism i ss the pe tition for re vie w. 

# FIL ED AUG 04 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e c a

use an orde r te rm inating re m ova l proc e e dings is not a fina l orde r of re m ova l, we la c k

jurisdic tion to c onside r R om e ro-M e z a ’ s pe t ition for re vie w of his m otion to re c onside r the dism issa l of his a p p e a l of the orde r te rm inat ing re m ova l proc e e dings. Se eAlc ala v . Holde r , 563 F.3d 1009, 1013-16 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(9) (“ Judic i a l re vie wof a ll que stions of la w a nd fa c t . . . sha l l be ava ila

ble only in judic i a l re vie w of a

fina l orde r [of re m ova l] .” ). To the e xte nt R om e ro-M e z a c onte nds tha t the c ourt ha s jurisdic tion to re vie w his 1999 e xpe dite d re m o va l orde r, this c o nte ntion fa ils. Se e8 U.S.C . § 1252(e )(2); Garc ia de

Rinc on v . De

p’t. of Home land Se c . , 539 F.3d 1133, 1138- 39 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [W ] hate v e r re lie f m ight be ga ine d by the ope rat ion of § 1252(a )(2)(D) an d

the ‘ gross m isc arria ge ’ sta nda rd, it is una

va ila ble to [pe t itione r] be c a

use he r unde rly ing re m o va l orde r is a n e x pe dite d re m ova l orde r that is subje c t to a dditional jurisdic tiona l ba rs— 8 U.S.C . §§ 1252(a)(2)(A) and 1252(e ) . . . [a

nd §] 1252(e ) only

pe rm its re v ie w of e xpe dite d re m ova l orde rs in a ha be a s c orpus pe t ition”(e m pha sis in origina

l)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D.

1 3 - 7 2 9 0 8 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection  with the Quarterly  report of Collectible  Concepts  Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Paul S.  Lipschutz,  Principal  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (3)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (4)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc.  and will be retained by
Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


Date: October 20, 2005                           By: /s/ PAUL S. LIPSCHUTZ
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Paul S. Lipschutz
                                                     Principal Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 22, 2013

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. The Health Effects Division’s Response to Syngenta on the Tefluthrin Registrati on Review Scoping Document for Human Risk Assessment (OPP Docket# OPP-2012-0501).

PC Code: 128912 DP Barcode: D407686

Decision No.: 473173 Registration No.: NA

Petition No.: NA Regulatory Action: Registration Review Assessment Type: Single Chemical Reregistration Case No.: NA

T XR No.: NA CAS No.: 79538-32-2

MRID No.: NA 40 CFR : §180.440

FROM: Shalu Shelat, Industrial Hygienist

Risk Assessment Branch VI Health Effects Division (7509P)

Charles Smith, Acting Branch Chief

Risk Assessment Branch I Health Effects Division (7509P)

THRU: Christine Olinger, Acting Branch Chief

Risk Assessment Branch VI Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO: Molly Clayton, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management & Implementation Branch 3 (7508P)

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division

In response to the memorandum, “ Tefluthrin: Registration Review Scoping Document for Human

Health Assessment” (D400989, 08/28/12), Syngenta is providing the following comments:

Syngenta:Page 2 of 2 1⁄2 LOQ = 0.03 ppm, incorrectly listed as t 0.3ppm

EPA Response: EPA concurs that the 1⁄2 LOQ value of 0.3 ppm is a typo and the correct 1⁄2 LOQ value is 0.03ppm.

Syngenta: There appears to be a typo. In Table 1 of the Tefluthrin Scoping Document it states that the 870.5550 requirement has not been satisfied. A report detailing unscheduled DNA synthesis in primary rat hepatocytes (Trueman, R., 1986, CTL report CTL/P/1619) was previously submitted to the EPA (MRID #40141317). According to the Table on page 40 of the 31May2012 HED document entitled “Tefluthrin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Registration on Sugar Beet Seed (non-food use)”, the study submitted to the EPA to fulfil the 870.5550 requirement was deemed acceptable”.

EPA Response: EPA agrees that the study was cited in the document entitled “ Tefluthrin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Registration on Sugar Beet Seed (non-food use) ” D368331, 5/31/12, and was deemed acceptable. The typo in Table 1 of the Tefluthrin Scoping Document states that 870.5550 was not satisfied, however, EPA ag rees that the requirement is satisfied.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302



I, Michael E. Spicer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Orchid BioSciences, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 12, 2004



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/S/ MICHAEL E. SPICER                            
|Michael E. Spicer                                
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Moller, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 590]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), rendered July 1, 2002, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt with respect to *796those charges was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We agree with the hearing court that the warrantless search of the defendant’s home was justified by exigent circumstances *(see People v Burr,*70 NY2d 354, 360-361 [1987], *cert denied*485 US 989 [1988]), and that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his *Miranda*rights *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]) prior to being questioned by the police *(see People v Husbands,*171 AD2d 756 [1991]).

The trial court properly determined that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of gender-based discriminatory peremptory challenges *(see People v Torres,*285 AD2d 658, 659 [2001]). Moreover, we reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly permitted the prosecution to impeach its own witness, the defendant’s wife, with prior contradictory statements she made in her testimony before the grand jury, and statements to the police *(see People v Whitfield,*152 AD2d 998, 999 [1989]).

As the prosecution correctly concedes, the crime of criminal use of a firearm in the second degree was improperly charged as a lesser-included offense of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree *(see*Penal Law §§ 265.08, 265.09). Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and sentence on the count of criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, and dismiss that count of the indictment.

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                  (54,547)
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           662,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        668,138
<PP&E>                                   44,441
<DEPRECIATION>                          (29,516)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        3,874,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   407,730
<BONDS>                                  89,675
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  9,510
<OTHER-SE>                            4,896,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          3,874,392
<SALES>                                 363,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        999,086
<CGS>                                   233,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           520,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       15,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         229,111
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     229,111
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            229,111
<EPS-BASIC>                              .002
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .002


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

May 24, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00161

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.G.I.G.,

Appella nt

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 01378 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights, which must be disposed of by this Court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on April 26

, 2021. Thus, the 180

- day deadline in which this court must dispose of this appeal is October 2 3, 2021.

On May 11 , 2021, court reporter Elva G. Chapa filed a notification of late record. The reporter ’s record was originally due on May 6, 2021. On May 11, 2021, this court granted Ms. Chapa ’s req uest for fifteen additional days to file the reporter’s record. On May 21, 2021, Ms. Chapa timely requested four additional days to file the reporter’s record. The request is GRANTED. Ms. Chapa is ORDERED to file the reporter ’s record with this court no later than May 2 5 , 2021

. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, no further requests for extensions of time will be granted

.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of May, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2022 / Notices 145 

are available for examination at the 

following locations: Federal Aviation 

Administration Federal Aviation 

Administration ASW–600, 10101 

Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 

76177 and City of Fort Worth Aviation 

Department, 201 American Concourse 

#330, Fort Worth, Texas 76106. 

Questions may be directed to the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

notice. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on December 

23, 2021. 

D. Cameron Bryan, 

Deputy Director, Airports Division. 

[FR Doc. 2021–28451 Filed 12–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Secretary 

List of Countries Requiring 

Cooperation With an International 

Boycott 

In accordance with section 999(a)(3) 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

the Department of the Treasury is 

publishing a current list of countries 

which require or may require 

participation in, or cooperation with, an 

international boycott (within the 

meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986). 

On the basis of the best information 

currently available to the Department of 

the Treasury, the following countries 

require or may require participation in, 

or cooperation with, an international 

boycott (within the meaning of section 

999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986). 

Iraq 

Kuwait 

Lebanon 

Libya 

Qatar 

Saudi Arabia 

Syria 

Yemen 

Kevin Nichols, 

International Tax Counsel (Tax Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2021–28399 Filed 12–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–0682] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activity: Advertising, Sales, Enrollment 

Materials, and Candidate Handbooks; 

Withdrawn 

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: On December 16, 2021, the 

Veterans Benefits Administration (VA), 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing an opportunity for 

public comment on the proposed 

collection ‘‘Advertising, Sales, 

Enrollment Materials, and Candidate 

Handbooks’’ OMB #2900–0682. This 

notice was published in error; therefore, 

this document corrects that error by 

withdrawing this FR notice, document 

number 2021–27255. 

DATES: As of December 27, 2021, the FR 

notice published at 86 FR 27255 on 

Thursday, December 17, 2021, is 

withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise 

and Integration, Data Governance 

Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266–4688 

or email maribel.aponte@va.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FR Doc. 

2021–27255, published on December 17, 

2021 (86 FR 27255), is withdrawn by 

this notice. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

Maribel Aponte, 

VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

Enterprise and Integration/Data Governance 

Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2021–28407 Filed 12–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
### Analyzed

Location Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Bronzite II 2 1 3

2 1 2 5

28 28 28 33 68 103 288

6 8 40 40 94

1 1

2 2

3 42 25 35 37 142

12 72 71 72 71 298

5 13 52 27 45 42 184

30 40 55 147 272

17 55 39 49 53 40 253

18 11 131 110 133 123 526

12 19 43 29 54 157

10 213 96 56 375

Total 72 136 430 620 627 715

- - - - - - - - 2,600



### 2,600



## Mine Names Remove, but available is needed. 2,392



## 2011 2012 

# Rock Dust - "CDEM" SamplesA N A L Y Z E D



### 208
#### Judith L. PARSONS, Appellant v. The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

(347 S. E. (2d) 504)

Supreme Court

Jan. 9, 1986.

ORDER

This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s request for bond pending her trial for capital murder. The State moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not directly appealable. We agree.

A criminal defendant may not appeal until sentenced. *State v. Robinson,*286 S. C. 173, 337 S. E. (2d) 204 (1985); *State v. Hubbard,*277 S. C 568, 290 S. E. (2d) 817 (1982). Therefore, the order denying bail was not directly appealable.

Appellant also requests this Court to admit her to bail. Construing her petition for bail as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we find she has failed to establish that she is being held without due process of law. *Bailey v. MacDougall,*247 S. C. 1, 145 S. E. (2d) 425 (1965).

Accordingly, the petition for bail is denied and this appeal is dismissed.

It is so ordered.
#### *Addison F. Posey vs. Franklin Branch.*

Where a writ was tested on the 4th day of March, 1842, and made returnable to the 3d Monday in March next, it .was *held*that the 3d Monday in March might well indicate the 3d Monday after the test of the 4th of March, 1842, or the 3d Monday next after the 4th of March,

*Before*Richardson, J., Abbeville, *Spring*Term, 1842.

This was a motion made to quash a writ or process as a nullity, under the following circumstances. The writ was tested on the fourth day of March, 1842, and made returnable to the third Monday in March next. The motion was refused by his Honor the presiding judge, who ruled in the case as follows: “ that “ the third Monday in March” might well indicate the third Monday after the test of the fourth of March, 1842, (the first Monday being the seventh of the same month,) thus rejecting the word *339"next,” or appling it thus, “ the third Monday” *next*after the fourth of March.

This construction would support the process, *ut res ma~ gis valeat quam perat;*which ought to be the judicial aim to carry out the evident intention, to render the return legal.

The case of *Adams and Scott,*12 Wendell, p. 218, was in point. There, the test being the seventh July, returnable the eighth of July “next,” it was construed to mean, not the eighth of July next, but the eighth of July *next*after the test of the seventh of July *instant^*

From this decision the defendant appealed, and renewed his motion in the Appeal Court, to quash the writ, on the ground of error in the presiding Judge.

Wilson, for the motion,

cited 3 Chitty -Gen. Pr. 35; 3 Wils. Rep. 341, 344 ; 2 H. Blackstone, 845; 2 Brev. Dig. 168. 12 Wend., as referred to by the court, Mr. Wilson contended was no authority for this court; cited 2 Johns. Rep. 190, *Burn vs. Thomas & King; Calhoun vs. Reynolds,*1 McMullán, 304 ; *Harp'er vs. Scuddy, ib.*265.

Percival, contra.

*Per curiam.*

The court concurs in the construction put by the presiding Judge, and the motion is therefore dismissed.
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement Nos.333-117136, 333-69531, 333-129098 and 333-129099 on FormS-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-54878, 333-88804, 333-62271, 333-61197, 333-39353 and333-33353 on Form S-8 of our report dated September 18, 2007 on the financial statements andfinancial statement schedule, which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatoryparagraphs relating to uncertainties which raise substantial doubt about the Company’sability to continue as a going concern as discussed in Note 1, the Company’s electedapplication of SAB No. 108, “Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements whenQuantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements,” as discussed in Note 23and the adoption of FASB Statement No. 123(R), “Share Based Payment” as discussed inNote 1, and the Company's restatement of the fiscal 2005 and 2006consolidated statement of cash flows as discussed in Note 24 and of ourreport on internal control over financial reporting dated September 18, 2007,which expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting because of material weaknesses, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of Atari, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2007.DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPNew York, New York