alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: August 19,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. 2013-0620 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2010-GL-70-0212) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attach 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 

Des Plaines, IL 600 18 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

ONE COPY 

Martin A. Blumenthal, Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney 

One Northfield Plaza, Suite 300 

Northfield, IL 60093 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.'(E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0620 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
Michael T. HUNT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4385

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Michael T. Hunt, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
#### Axel Arnulfo DONIS-ALEGRIA, aka John Doe, aka Louis Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72106

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Jerry Wolf Stuchiner, Attorney, Paladin-law, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Axel Arnulfo Donis-Alegria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Don-is-Alegria failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Donis-Alegria’s contention that the agency erred in not conducting a future-oriented hardship analysis is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. *See id.*(absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary hardship determination).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
#### Noah STEFFY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF FORT SMITH, et al., Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3276

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 17, 2017

Filed: March 22, 2017

Noah Steffy, Pro Se

Michael A. LaFreniere, Daily & Woods, Fort Smith, AR, for Defendants-Appellees

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After Noah Steffy was served with a 7 Day Clean-Up Notice for violations of City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, nuisance ordi*565nances and the City scheduled a final inspection, Steffy filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking to enjoin this enforcement of the ordinances as violating his federal constitutional rights. Some weeks later, a criminal summons issued ordering Steffy to appear in Sebastian County District Court on a charge of failure to maintain premises, and defendants moved to dismiss this federal action under abstention principles established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). With the state criminal case pending, the district court1 granted that motion. Steffy appeals dismissal of his *pro se*action. Reviewing the district court’s application of Younger abstention for abuse of discretion, we affirm. See Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review).

Younger abstention is appropriate if “the action complained of constitutes an ongoing state judicial proceeding; ... the proceedings implicate important state interests; ... there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges ... [and the federal court does not detect] bad faith, harassment, or some extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.” Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, Ark., 163 F.3d 475, 479 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting and citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982)). “[T]he state proceeding must be ongoing at the time the district court enters its order regarding abstention.” Id. at 480. Here, the state criminal prosecution was ongoing at the time of dismissal, the enforcement of nuisance ordinances implicates important state interests, and Steffy failed to show that he could not raise his constitutional challenge in state court or that the prosecution was brought in bad faith or to harass.

Accordingly, we affirm the Order of the district court but modify the dismissal to clarify that it is without prejudice. See Anderson v. Schultz, 871 F.2d 762, 766 (8th Cir. 1989).

1

. The Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Exhibit 32.1  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 Annual Report of Golden Health Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Kam Lau, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.  February 12, 2009 /s/ Kam Lau     Chief Executive Officer
##### 








---



##### 



NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS
    
    TERMS ENDINGFidel Pino Cros
19 W. McKinley Street
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680
    
    
    2001Pedro R. Dominguez
19 W. McKinley Street
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680
    
    
    2001Fredeswinda G. Frontera
19 W. McKinley Street
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680
    
    
    1999Angel Luis Rosas
19 W. McKinley Street
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680
    
    
    2000Cesar A. Ruiz
19 W. McKinley Street
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680
    
    
    1999Frank C. Stipes
19 W. McKinley Street
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680
    
    
    2000Cornelius Tamboer
19 W. McKinley Street
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680
    
    
    1999




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



REDEMPTIONYEAR
    
    PRICE2002
    
    $
    26.002003
    
    $
    25.752004
    
    $
    25.502005
    
    $
    25.252006 and thereafter
    
    $
    25.00




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



REDEMPTIONYEAR
    
    PRICE2004
    
    $
    26.002005
    
    $
    25.502006 and thereafter
    
    $
    25.00




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



REDEMPTIONYEAR
    
    PRICE2006
    
    $
    25.502007
    
    $
    25.252008 and thereafter
    
    $
    25.00




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



REDEMPTIONYEAR
    
    PRICE2006
    
    $
    25.502007
    
    $
    25.252008 and thereafter
    
    $
    25.00




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



REDEMPTIONYEAR
    
    PRICE2007
    
    $
    25.502008
    
    $
    25.252009 and thereafter
    
    $
    25.00




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



REDEMPTIONYEAR
    
    PRICE2008
    
    $
    25.502009
    
    $
    25.252010 and thereafter
    
    $
    25.00




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



REDEMPTIONYEAR
    
    PRICE2008
    
    $
    25.502009
    
    $
    25.252010 and thereafter
    
    $
    25.00




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



REDEMPTIONYEAR
    
    PRICE2009
    
    $
    51.002010
    
    $
    50.502011 and thereafter
    
    $
    50.00




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



NAME:
    
    POSTAL AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS:Frank C. Stipes, Esq.
    
    19 W. McKinley StreetMayaguez, Puerto Rico 00680
#### John S. STRITZINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian MOYNIHAN, Bank of America; Kathryn Ruemeller, Whitehouse; Lowell McAdam, Verizon; Katherine Wright; United States Attorney-SC; US Supreme Court Clerk; Supply Chain Partners, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1161

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John S. Stritzinger seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his complaint for failing to comply with a court order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 27, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on February 2, 2017. Because Stritzinger failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Stritzinger’s pending motions, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  following  Financial  Data  Schedule  contains  restated data for the  nine
months  ended October 5, 1996.  Diluted Earnings per share have been restated to
conform with the implementation of  SFAS  128  in  the  fourth quarter of fiscal
1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            OCT-05-1996
<CASH>                                        3168 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                61551 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   487 
<INVENTORY>                                  22012 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             87467 
<PP&E>                                       10734 
<DEPRECIATION>                                3229 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              105640 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        60792 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   42633 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                105640 
<SALES>                                     234035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            234035 
<CGS>                                       196922 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               196922 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1594 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               5244 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  2127 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           3117 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  3117 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .33 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .31 
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6169

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNIS TAMAR FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00122-WDK-JEB-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Tamar Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Dennis Tamar Freeman appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Freeman , No. 2:07-cr00122-WDK-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 8, 2009). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

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 Catalina Marketing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Dick Buell, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ L. Dick Buell                                                 
|L. Dick Buell                                                     
|Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
|                                                                  
|August 2, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6081 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6081

 To amend the short title of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act to be the 
              Dianne Feinstein Lake Tahoe Restoration Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2023

  Mr. Garamendi (for himself, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Costa, Mr. 
  Robert Garcia of California, Ms. Porter, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. 
  Harder of California, Mr. Ruiz, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Brownley, Mr. 
  Takano, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Correa, Mrs. Torres of California, Mr. 
  Aguilar, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Panetta, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Mr. Lieu, Ms. 
Matsui, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Jacobs, Mr. Carbajal, 
   Mr. Sherman, Mr. Bera, Mr. Peters, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Thompson of 
California, Mr. Gomez, Ms. Waters, Mr. Levin, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Eshoo, 
Ms. Chu, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Titus, Mr. Amodei, 
  Mr. Horsford, and Ms. Lee of Nevada) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in 
 addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and 
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the short title of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act to be the 
              Dianne Feinstein Lake Tahoe Restoration Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DIANNE FEINSTEIN LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT.

    (a) Short Title Amendment.--Section 1 of the Lake Tahoe Restoration 
Act (Public Law 106-506) is amended to read as follows:

``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    ``This Act may be cited as the `Dianne Feinstein Lake Tahoe 
Restoration Act'.''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the ``Lake Tahoe 
Restoration Act'' (as a reference to Public Law 106-506) shall be 
deemed to be a reference to the ``Dianne Feinstein Lake Tahoe 
Restoration Act''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

I, George R. Aylward, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Virtus Investment Partners, 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 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 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: May 13, 2009



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ GEORGE R. AYLWARD                          
|George R. Aylward                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director



5
STATE of Louisiana v. Phillip SCHANE

No. 2017-KP-0582

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF IBERIA**

This court granted the defendant's application, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1. The State's application for rehearing is granted to clarify that the district court on remand has discretion to determine the extent of the proceedings necessary to comply with that directive.

*434While defendant must be given the opportunity to show his crime did not reflect irreparable corruption, in accordance with *Montgomery v. Louisiana* , 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), because substantial proceedings have already been conducted in this matter the parties should have the opportunity to introduce transcripts of those earlier proceedings at the resentencing hearing conducted on remand. Furthermore, in light of the earlier proceedings, the district court has discretion to determine what additional evidence is necessary to comply with La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1(C). Finally, as we noted previously, after defendant is resentenced, that judgment is included by statute among those which defendant may appeal. *See* La.C.Cr.P. art. 912(C)(1).

WEIMER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the result, but would grant and docket to address the issue of the vacature of the defendant's sentence.