alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fleishon *v.*Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (et al., Appellants).

Argued May 1, 1956.

Before Stern, C. J., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*296
      *Morris Wolf,*with him *George X. Schwartz*and *Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Gohen,*for appellant.

*Irvin Stander,*with him *Abraham L. Freedman,*City Solicitor, and *Richard H. Markowitz,*Assistant City Solicitor, for appellee.

May 21, 1956:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The owner of the property involved appealed from an Order of the court below which reversed the Zoning Board of Adjustment which had approved permits for a two-story apartment house and an outdoor parking lot. The owner had applied, not for a special exception or variance, but for permits on the ground that the application for the permits was in strict conformity with the Zoning Ordinance.

The decree is affirmed on the able and comprehensive opinion of President Judge Oliver. Costs shall be paid by appellants.
EX PARTE Milton HAMBRIGHT

1160204 (CR-15-1379)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

2-10-2017

Cert. denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Luis GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51094 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

*138Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jorge Luis Garcia, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Luis Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
B.S., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5184

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6010 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6010

To invalidate the use of United States passports to travel to Iran, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 2023

Mr. McCormick (for himself, Mr. Collins, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Waltz, and 
                Mr. Clyde) introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

              Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To invalidate the use of United States passports to travel to Iran, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop the Iranian Hostage Business 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INVALIDATION OF PASSPORTS FOR TRAVEL TO IRAN.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall take such steps as 
may be necessary, pursuant to the authority provided by section 1 of 
the Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the issue and validity of 
passports, and for other purposes'', approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 
211a; commonly referred to as the ``Passport Act''), to declare United 
States passports invalid for travel to, in, or through Iran.
    (b) Exceptions for Certain Travel.--The restriction under 
subsection (a) may be waived with respect to an individual's passport 
if the Secretary of State determines that such individual is traveling 
to Iran in the national interest due to the fact that--
            (1) the applicant is a professional reporter or journalist, 
        the purpose of whose trip is to obtain, and make available to 
        the public, information about Iran;
            (2) the applicant is a representative of the International 
        Committee of the Red Cross or the American Red Cross traveling 
        pursuant to an officially-sponsored Red Cross mission;
            (3) the applicant's travel is justified by compelling 
        humanitarian considerations including--
                    (A) visiting a family member who is particularly 
                vulnerable because of age, disability, or living 
                circumstances;
                    (B) caring for a seriously or terminally ill 
                relative;
                    (C) attending a funeral; or
                    (D) receiving medical treatment; or
            (4) the applicant's travel is otherwise in the national 
        interest.
    (c) Termination.--The restriction under subsection (a) shall 
terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K and into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement File No. 33-12034 and 33-31547, of our report dated
January 5, 1997, included in Argonaut Group, Inc.'s 1996 Annual Report to
Shareholders.  It should be noted that we have not audited any consolidated
financial statements of the Company subsequent to December 31, 1996 or
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.



                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


San Francisco, California
 March 6, 1997
#### Julio Cesar BARAHONA-VALLECILLO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72525

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, Timothy Bo Stanton, Attorney, 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: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Julio Cesar Barahona-Vallecillo, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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 have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. *Gutierrez v. Mukasey,*521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Barahona-Vallecillo failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal, where he presented inconsistent testimony with no corroboration regarding the length of his absences from the United States. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(B) (petitioner bears the burden of showing eligibility); § 1229b(b)(l)(A) (ten years continuous physical presence required); § 1229b(d)(2) *550(continuous physical presence broken by departure of more than 90 days).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Eric Kennedy SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3083

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 3, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
provided that provided that
   Stock Options Plan:




---



##### 



provided that
 Benefits:
  Paid Time Off
 provided that




---



##### 




    
    Signing NaviSites Non-Compete Agreement, Employee Inventions and Proprietary
Rights Assignment Agreement, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and Anti-Harassment
Policy Acknowledgement.
    
    Submitting satisfactory proof of your identity and legal authorization to
work in the United States (as required by the immigration and Control Act of 1986).
The enclosed sheets specify the types of documents that may be submitted as proof.
You must exhibit originals of these document(s) within the first three (3) business
days of your start date with NaviSite. Non-compliance with the I-9 requirements may
include disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.
      
 /s/ Mark Zingale
    
    August 28, 2009
    
    August 31, 2007Mark Zingale
    
    Date
    
    Start Date




---



##### 



1.
    
    New Hire Check List2.
    
    Offer letter signed by you3.
    
    Employee Invention & Proprietary Rights4.
    
    Non-Compete Agreement5.
    
    Code of Business Conduct & Ethics6.
    
    Anti Harassment Policy Acknowledgement7.
    
    I-9 form (Must be completed with authorized NaviSite employee/HRBP within first three (3) days of employment)8.
    
    W-4 form9.
    
    State withholdings (if Applicable)10.
    
    Employment Application11.
    
    Kroll Background Check Authorization12.
    
    Equal Employment Opportunity Form13.
    
    Direct Deposit (Must be completed even if employee does not elect direct deposit, (check NO)).14.
    
    Emergency Contact information15.
    
    Handbook Receipt & Acknowledgement16.
    
    Payroll Deduction Form17.
    
    Blue Cross / Blue Shield  HMO/PPO Enrollment18.
    
    MetLife Dental Enrollment19.
    
    Unum Insurance Group Life Enrollment20.
    
    Unum Group Additional Life (Optional) Enrollment21.
    
    401K Beneficiary Form22.
    
    FSA Enrollment Form
From: 

Joseph Stolle <joseph@shellengr.com> 

To: 

Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: 

"Stotts, Stacy" <SStotts@stinson.com>, "Miller, Aaron" <amiller@doerun.com>, 

"Marucheau, Louis" 

<lmarucheau@doerun.com>, nate.topham@gmail.com 

Date: 

06/02/2011 02:15 PM 

Subject

: 

Re: Primary MACT

Nathan, 

EP-17B and 17C correspond to dumping and loading fume at the south storage area. 

They no 

longer dump/store fume at this location. 

Thanks, Joe 

Joseph A. Stolle, PE 

Shell Engineering 

(913)898-3000 

Cell (816)377-2470 

On 6/2/2011 9:50 AM, Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov wrote: 

Hi Stacy & Joe, 

Thanks for the quick response. I have one more question regarding emissions in the 

remodel submitted 

as part of your comments. Three volume sources (20004, 20004B, and 20004C) that 

relate to fume 

loading/unloading are listed with zero emissions in your modeling due to zero 

throughput. The 2009 EIQ 

lists emission points corresponding to 20004B and 20004C (they are EP-017B and 

EP-017C in the EIQ) 

that have zero lead emissions but 0.12552 tons/year of controlled lead compounds 

emissions (column 9 

of form 2.T). 

Are the emissions from these two points truly zero? If so, what is the reason, 

enclosure and ventilation to 

control device, cessation of this process, something else? Am I reading the EIQ form

2.T for these 

emission sources wrong? 

Page 1
I'd appreciate if you're able to get back to me this afternoon, hopefully this will 

be a relatively simple 

answer. 

Thanks, 

Nathan Topham 

Environmental Engineer 

US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MIG 

Phone - (919)541-0483 

From: 

"Stotts, Stacy" <SStotts@stinson.com> 

To: 

Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <nate.topham@gmail.com> 

Cc: 

"Joseph Stolle" <joseph@shellengr.com>, "Miller, Aaron" <amiller@doerun.com>, 

"Marucheau, Louis" 

<lmarucheau@doerun.com> 

Date: 

06/02/2011 01:20 AM 

Subject

: 

Primary MACT

 

Nathan – As a follow-up to our conversation today, the stack stacking done in 

2009 is a valid stack test. As you know stack tests necessarily have variability 

due 

to a differences in the conditions, feed etc. at any facility. The test for 2009 

does 

(and would be expected to) reveal different information for the time frame tested 

in 2009 than in prior years. This test is valid and was accepted by the state 

agency 

and can be used as a part of the evaluation of comments submitted by Doe Run on 

the proposed Primary MACT rule. 

 

Please contact me if you have any other questions. 

 

 

Stacy Stotts | Partner | Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 

1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 | Kansas City, MO 64106-2150 

T: 816.691.3363 | F: 816.412.9326 | M: 816.304.3067 

SStotts@stinson.com | www.stinson.com 

 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 

This communication is from a law firm and may contain confidential and/or privileged

information. If it has been sent 

to you in error, please contact the sender for instructions concerning return or 

destruction, and do not use or 

disclose the contents to others. 

Page 2
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02836]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and its 
continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on February 17, 
2022.

PLACE: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC. (This meeting will be a 
virtual meeting).

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 
30109.
    Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules 
and practices.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Vicktoria J. Allen,
Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-02836 Filed 2-7-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/15/2015 6:26:54 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  ("Section  906"),  H. Douglas Saathoff, the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of Nighthawk Systems, Inc., certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nighthawk Systems, Inc.



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





Date:  April 15, 2009



| |     |                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ H. Douglas Saathoff              
| |     | H. Douglas Saathoff,                 
| |     | Chief Executive Officer and Principal
| |     | Accounting and Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Lorna E. Nagler, President and Chief Executive Officer of Christopher &Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended August 28, 2010 as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended;  and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  October 7, 2010 |   |                                                    |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                    |
|                        | By:    | /s/  Lorna E. Nagler                                    |
|                        |   | Lorna  E. Nagler*President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 2 for
the quarter ended April 5, 2005 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.,
the undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


          March 31, 2006          /s/ Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                  ----------------------
                                  Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                  Chief Executive Officer and President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### IN RE: Mark C. BUSACK, Petitioner.

No. 16-1754

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Mark C. Busack, Petitioner ProSe.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark C. Busack petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave *780to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Adam George LOPES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-880

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1996
<CASH>                                         563,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,418,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,331,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   890,000
<INVENTORY>                                 16,117,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,898,000
<PP&E>                                      10,678,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,281,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,614,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,292,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,204,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,614,000
<SALES>                                     31,332,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,332,000
<CGS>                                       22,634,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,682,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               419,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,841,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,078,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,763,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,763,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        




</TABLE>
B.B., Mother of L.T., Minor Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D18-143

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Lucas J. Taylor of Sellers, Taylor & Morrison, P.A., Live Oak, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville; Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Sara Goldfarb, and Rocco J. Carbone, III, of Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Stanley Lynn WRAY v. STATE

CR-16-0638

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.