alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: John Lee CHRISTAKIS, Debtor. John Lee Christakis, Appellant, v. U.S. Bank N.A., Appellee.

No. 14-60013

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

John Lee Christakis, Pro Se

Michael Curran, Jennifer Reiter, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

John Lee Christakis appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) *506order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for clear error factual findings about mootness, and review de novo legal conclusions. *Rev Op Grp. v. ML Manager LLC (In re Mortgages Ltd.),*771 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Christak-is’s appeal as moot, because Christakis neither sought a stay of the bankruptcy court’s objectionable order, nor offered any reason for not doing so. *See id.*at 1215-16 (the court must first determine if appellant applied to the bankruptcy judge for a stay, or gave adequate reason on the record for not doing so). Christakis has accordingly permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur that it is inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal. *Id.*at 1215-17; *Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.),*677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Christakis’s arguments regarding the underlying merits;

Christakis’s motion to take judicial notice of BAP transcripts (Docket No. 26) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6750 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6750

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, as the 
             ``Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

 Mr. Davis of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Adams, Mr. 
Rouzer, Ms. Ross, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Jackson of North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, 
  Mr. Nickel, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Ms. Manning, Mr. McHenry, 
Mrs. Foushee, and Mr. Edwards) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, as the 
             ``Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MILTON F. FITCH, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 501 Mercer Street Southwest in Wilson, North Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Milton F. Fitch, Sr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Milton F. 
Fitch, Sr. Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit  31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, David Balai, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Permanent Master Issuer Plc (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Halifax plc, as servicer.

Date:  28th March 2007

 

/s/  David Balai                   

David Balai

Director, Permanent Funding (No. 2) Limited
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 18324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07018]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  10:00 a.m., Friday, April 12, 2013.

PLACE:  1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS:  Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the 
event that the times or dates of this or any future meetings change, an 
announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

 Natise Stowe,
 Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2013-07018 Filed 3-22-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
#### In the Matter of the Application of The Metropolitan El. R. Co. *In re*Watson *et al.*
      *1*

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed June 23, 1891.)*

Appeal—Cannot be taeen prom confirmation of award by commissioners.

This court has no jurisdiction to review a decision of the supreme court,. rendered upon the appraisal and report of commissioners appointed by it, to condemn property taken for railroad purposes.

*882Appeal from order of the supreme court, general term, first department, affirming orders confirming awards.

*Edwin M.*Felt, for app’lt; *Julien T. Davies,*for resp’t.

Affirming N. Y. State Rep., 793.

Gray, J.

I think that this- Court has no jurisdiction to review a decision of the supreme court, rendered upon the appraisal and report of its commissioners. It has been so held in proceedings to acquire property rights taken under the provisions of the general railroad act of 1850, and so, by parity of reasoning, we must hold where the petitioner is incorporated, and proceeds under what is commonly known as the rapid transit act (chap. 606, Laws of 1895). In the latter act, the provisions respecting the acquisition of lands, *in invitum*the owner thereof, are similar as to the procedure to those prescribed in the act of 1850. However, serious, therefore, the error of the commissioners may have been1 in the rejection of the proof relating to the prior adjudication in the equity action between these parties, there is no power in this court to review it, upon, an appeal from the order of confirmation.'

Appeal dismissed, with costs to the respondent

All concur, except Finch, J., absent.
|   | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November 4, 2010 | /s/ David M. Bradley          |
|------------------|-------------------------------|
| Dated            | David M. Bradley              |
|             | Chairman, President & CEO |

----
#### Alberto SANCHEZ-LUNA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70285

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Angela Novas McGill, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Angela Novas McGill, APC, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner

Siu P. Wong, Esquire, 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

*431Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alberto Sanchez-Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez-Luna’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. *See INS v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).

The BIA sufficiently articulated its reasons for denying his motion. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).

We deny Sanchez-Luna’s request for judicial notice'of the extra-record evidence he submitted with his opening brief. *See Dent v. Holder,*627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Sanchez-Luna’s remaining contention regarding numerical limitations on his motion. *See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Ryle 36-3.
. '**~** 

# · <63CD-i-oJ }
.

' ... '::.



# . '**~.** 

## · •

# \N::l~ll**~. :kcdq~~~**  1 

# Lto-z.'rrl tk.Jdi<:..\a\

# D\coni~c-r \S, · ..**~** 

### CnuQ't 

## c:F**lUDcrl.Coum~_,_·** 

## .lJ\<oi\2\**~'t.** Q. \6t2.'L

### ~~· -_·

### -----'------'~ 

## '1**G~~** 

## . . .\ , I , ,

## tl6M\0.;<1li.tRME1~.. .

## ~. . 

# RE-a!iVEcnN--

. '.·**00URTOFCBlMINALA~PEAlJ3~- ---~~(jlf56** **~0..** 

### \(o 1 

## (ol.l.ce-:**~p0** 

### \ MAR 1 6 2015**c_au~b** 

### ·llD. \(o**,q~D ~~a·b\**  

### ·**~lie~**

. '
. .**WI~,** 'lJI(fiVC(

. .
. . . ' ' ' 

## i)Rlq\\Jc\ B\)p\\c.ot\o\1**fu~ ~~'ct-**  

# o£ N\ctrdaro\.\5> 

# t
..

. . '' ..

# ·~·-· 

# .--:-'·

___ ·**Jt9·~·** 

# _ ...**_···--~-~-**

-' '

## .. '·

-**~** :, 

### . 

## . ..

-.

# •-tJc~n-rntcS.**~=-----=--~l-. -1--=----=-------~--**  -. --;-, -- ' · ..
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3160

MARGARET L. THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in AT0831070861-1-2.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Margaret L. Thomas submits a second letter requesting discovery.

The court previously informed Thomas that discovery of additional documents is

not conducted on appeal. The court will treat Thomas's June 15, 2009 letter as her

reply brief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Thomas's letter is treated as her reply brief. Copies of the letter and this order

shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to hear this case.

FOR THE COURT

JUN 2 5 2009	/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date	 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Margaret L. Thomas

William P. Rayel, Esq.

s8

tee

us. MU& APPEALS FOR

THE F RAL CIRCUIT

JUN 2 5 2009

JAN HORBALY

CLERK
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: October 31, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael A. Baker                 
|                        |  | Michael A. Baker                     
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6907 

To establish a grant program to provide assistance to eligible individuals 

to cover the costs of childcare services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To establish a grant program to provide assistance to eligible 

individuals to cover the costs of childcare services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Parental Workforce 

5 Training Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHILDCARE GRANT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—From the amount appro8 priated under subsection (f), and not later than 1 year 

9 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

10 Labor shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to local 

2 

•HR 6907 IH

1 boards to provide assistance to eligible individuals to cover 

2 the costs of childcare services as supportive services. 

3 (b) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant 

4 under this Act, a local board shall submit an application 

5 to the Secretary, at such time, in such manner, and con6 taining such information as the Secretary may require. 

7 (c) USES OF FUNDS.—A local board that receives a 

8 grant under this Act shall provide funds to eligible individ9 uals who are participating in an employment and training 

10 activity in the local area served by such local board, for 

11 such individuals to cover the costs of childcare services as 

12 supportive services. 

13 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

14 that the Secretary awards the first grant under subsection 

15 (a), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 

16 the effect of the grants on the individuals who received 

17 assistance, including the enrollment and completion rates 

18 of such individuals in employment and training activities. 

19 (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

20 (1) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.—The term ‘‘eligi21 ble individual’’ means an individual who— 

22 (A) has one or more dependent children; 

23 and 

24 (B) is participating in an employment and 

25 training activity. 

3 

•HR 6907 IH

1 (2) WIOA TERMS.—The terms ‘‘employment 

2 and training activity’’, ‘‘local area’’, ‘‘local board’’, 

3 and ‘‘supportive services’’ have the meanings given 

4 such terms in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation 

5 and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102). 

6 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

7 are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry 

8 out this Act. 

Æ
#### Stephen A. Walker, Respondent, *v.*The American National Bank, Appellant.

(Argued April 4, 1872;

decided April 9, 1872.)

If attorneys transact business as brokers, they are entitled to compensation as such, but cannot charge a counsel fee for conversations with their employers about the business, unless by express contract.

*660This was an action upon an account for legal services assigned to plaintiff by Strong *&*Shepard, attorneys. A portion of the account was for services of plaintiff’s assignors in negotiating the sale of certain mortgages belonging to the defendant under an agreement that defendant should allow as compensation all received over forty per cent of amount of mortgages. Failing to effect a sale, the bank employed the assignors to negotiate a loan upon the security of the mortgages, with the promise that if the assignors succeeded they were to be compensated for their services in attempting to sell. The assignors succeeded in negotiating a loan, but defendant refused to consummate the transaction. There was also a charge in the bill of $3,000 for counsel fees in divers consultations in reference to the sale and the loan. The whole account was allowed by the referee.

Held, that the employment of Strong *&*Shepard in negotiating the sale and loan was as brokers, and the referee was not authorized to find an employment as counsel; that the assignors were not entitled to compensation both as brokers for doing the business and as counsel for conversations had in reference to it.

*Moody JB. Smith*for the appellant.

*T. JR. Strong*for the respondent.

Grover, J.,

reads *for*reversal and new trial. All concur. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 55871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23222]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, September 15, 2011, 2 p.m.

PLACE: Broadcasting Board of Governors, VOA Briefing Room (Room 1528-
A), 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at 
the time and location listed above. The BBG will receive and consider 
recommendations regarding a proposed new strategic plan and the 
revision of Agency grant agreements. The BBG will receive reports from: 
The BBG's Strategy and Budget Committee and Governance Committee; the 
International Broadcasting Bureau Director; and the Voice of America, 
the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio 
Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks regarding 
programming coverage updates. The BBG will also receive an update on 
digital innovations. The meeting is open to public observation via 
streamed Webcast, both live and on-demand, on the BBG's public Web site 
at http://www.bbg.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel and Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23222 Filed 9-7-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 10
Page 11

How YOU Can Help

Support Tampa Bay: Buy a 

Tampa Bay Estuary license tag 

for your car or boat trailer!
exhibit10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 










	  	  	  
	
Notice of Grant of

	  	
LSI CORPORATION


	
Stock Option

	  	
ID: 94-2712976


	
Under the

	  	
1621 BARBER LANE


	
LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan

	  	
MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035







 










	  	  	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	
Award Number:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Grant Date:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Number of Shares:

	  
	  	  	
Exercise Price:

	  
	  	  	
Expiration Date:

	  





 









 


On the grant date shown above, LSI Corporation granted you a nonqualified stock option covering the number of shares shown above under the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. When exercisable, the option will allow you to purchase shares of LSI’s common stock for a price per share equal to the exercise price shown above. Your right to exercise this Option will terminate on the expiration date shown above or earlier if provided in the attached Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement or in the plan.


 


 


Your option will become exercisable with respect to the number of shares and at the time or times indicated below, but only if [any applicable performance requirements indicated below have been met and] you have not incurred a Termination of Service prior to the applicable time. 


 



	  	  	  	  	  
	
Shares

	  	
Vesting Date

	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  





 









 


By your signature below, you agree that this award is governed by this Notice of Grant, the attached Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement and the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. You acknowledge that you have received, read and understand this Notice of Grant, the attached agreement and the plan. You agree to accept as binding all decisions or interpretations of the Board of Directors of LSI or its delegate regarding any questions relating to this Notice of Grant, the attached agreement or the plan. 


 










	  	  	  
	
______________________________________________

	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	  
	
Date: