alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. The DIVIGARD BAKING CO., Respondent.

No. 37, Docket 30382.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 3, 1966.

Decided Oct. 19, 1966.

Richard S. Rodin, Atty., N. L. R. B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Glen M. Bendixson and Evalyn A.

Gutman, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

William J. Larkin, 2d, Waterbury, Conn., for respondent.

Before SMITH, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order against respondent. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 153 NLRB No. 36.

The Board found that respondent had violated Sections 8(a) (1), 8(a) (2), 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) (1), (a) (2), (a) (3) and (a) (5), and it ordered respondent to cease and desist from the violations and to take certain affirmative action.

The principal contention in opposition to this petition concerns the violation of Section 8(a) (5), involving respondent’s refusal to bargain with the union. Respondent argues that its refusal was not culpable since it had a good faith doubt concerning the union’s majority status. In particular, respondent challenges the validity of the union’s authorization cards which it claims were obtained under a misrepresentation that their sole purpose was to force an election. See NLRB v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co., 359 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1966). An attack is also made on the Board’s finding that respondent fired an employee to discourage union activity in violation of section 8(a) (3).

Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Board’s conclusions which are therefore unassailable here. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Its order is appropriate to redress the violations which the Board has found. See NLRB v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co., supra.

Enforcement granted.
#### Larry HAMILTON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; L. Pena; States Attorney, Jane Doe; Jeff Sheidon; Jamie Haddock; Police Officer, John Doe; Prince Williams County Police, Jane Doe et al.; John Doe; PWDC; Garret, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1302

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

*284Larry Hamilton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Jeffrey Notz, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Hamilton, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended civil rights complaints with prejudice as incomprehensible and untimely. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hamilton’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Hamilton has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*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 Annual Report of Ariba, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert M. Calderoni, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James W. Frankola, as Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each hereby certifies, 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/    ROBERT M.
CALDERONIRobert M. CalderoniChief Executive Officer


Date: November 15, 2007



/s/    JAMES W. FRANKOLAJames W. FrankolaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 15, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byron Denard WAMLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10335 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 16, 2017)

Peter J. Sholl, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Vincent Chiu, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Michael Shay Ryan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Byron Wamley in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Wamley’s revocation and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. James J. Archer. Appellant, against Joseph H. Brophy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Submitted October 18, 1943;

decided October 21, 1943.

*James J. Archer,*in person, for motion.

No one opposed.

*681Motion denied on the ground that the appellant’s appeal has not been heard on the merits in the Appellate Division; that the order of the Appellate Division refusing appellant permission to use typed papers there is not appealable; and that under the provisions of the Constitution no appeal lies to this court from the order of the Special Term, as of right.
#### Jeff Kimani WAIKAO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-72642

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed June 20, 2017

Lesley Irizarry-Hougan, Attorney, L.I.H, Law, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

OIL, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial 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: BYBEE, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jeff Kimani Waikao, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of a final order of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed Waikao’s appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

The BIA provided specific, cogent reasons for its adverse credibility finding by relying on the numerous inconsistencies between Waikao’s declaration and his testimony. *See Lai v. Holder,*773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). Waikao has not shown “that the record compels a different interpretation [of his testimony],” and this “is fatal to [his] challenge to the adverse credibility determination.” *Garcia v. Holder,*749 F.3d 785, 790-91 (9th Cir. 2014). Even if we credited Waikao’s testimony, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Waikao is ineligible for the relief he seeks. The unfulfilled threats Waikao alleges do not rise to the level of persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats that ethnic Albanian would be harmed or killed unless he left Serbia con*813stituted “harassment rather than persecution”). Nor has Waikao shown a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Mgoian v. INS,*184 F.3d 1029, 1035 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999). Waikao did not establish that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution or torture if returned to Kenya. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Herman Cantor, Assignee, Resp’t, *v.*Ferdinand Levy, one of the Coroners of New York, *et al.,*App’lts.

*Morris J. Hirsch,*for resp’t; *S. F. Kneeland,*for app’lts.

Judgment affirmed; with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 35 N. Y. State Rep., 247.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6740 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6740

To require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Department of Defense 
      Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to include 
   consideration of past performance of affiliates of small business 
                   concerns, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

  Mr. Bacon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Department of Defense 
      Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to include 
   consideration of past performance of affiliates of small business 
                   concerns, 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 ``Defense Small Business Affiliate 
Consideration Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE OF AFFILIATES OF SMALL 
              BUSINESS CONCERNS.

     Not later than July 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense shall amend 
section 215.305 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (or any 
successor regulation) to require that when small business concerns bid 
on Department of Defense contracts, the past performance evaluation and 
source selection processes shall consider, if relevant, the past 
performance information of affiliate companies of the small business 
concerns.
                                 <all>
```
#### Frederick W. Davis, App’lt, *v.*George W. Evans, Resp’t.

*(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,*

*Filed May 25, 1891.)*

Witness—Impeachment—Exclusion op evidence.

It is not error to exclude evidence of statements made by defendant, offered for the sole purpose of affecting his credibility, where the offer is made before the defendant has presented himself as a witness.

Appeal from judgment dismissing the complaint and from order denying motion for a new trial.

*488Action to recover damages to plaintiff’s foundry, alleged to have been caused by the pressure upon its wall of a large heap of gravel piled against it on defendant’s adjoining land.

The question referred to in the opinion was as follows :

“Assuming the gravel piled up against the brick wall such as has been named to you, and the wall thrown down into the factory, what significance, if any, has the place where the gravel flowed in and the slope of its flow as regards the fall of the wall ? ”

*Alex.*McKinney, for app’lt; *J. Stewart*Boss, for resp’t.

Van Wyck, J.

Plaintiff’s counsel offered in evidence certain statements of defendant, for the express purpose of solely affecting his credibility, by showing that he had made conflicting statements, and the learned trial judge excluded them on the ground that counsel had better defer this offer till the defendant had presented himself as a witness, for till then his credibility was not involved.

Upon such an exclusion we do not think error can be predicated. Even if it was error it was cured by plaintiff’s opportunity to offer the statements in evidence after defendant was made a witness and by the actual offer and admission of the statements afterwards. It seems to us that the exclusion of the question at folio 92 was proper. It called upon the witness to express his conclusion that the pile of gravel pushed the wall down, and it did not assume correctly the facts and circumstances sworn to by any of the witnesses.

The counsel should have described the pile of gravel, its shape and size, and asked his mechanical expert the weight of pressure on the wall, and then described the wall and asked him what weight of pressure the wall would resist. But he, in fact, wanted this witness to decide the very question that the jury alone should have decided. These are the only exceptions referred to in the points.

We do not think the verdict contrary to or against the weight of evidence, after a careful consideration of the testimony.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Osborne, J., concurs.
#### Bonded Municipal Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Carodix Corporation et al., Defendants; Joseph P. Day et al., as Trustees, Defendants-Appellants, and County of Nassau, Impleaded Defendant-Respondent.

Argued October 19, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*734
      *Herbert L. Eutner*for plaintiff-appellant.

*Fred L. Gross*and *Frederick A. Keck*for Joseph P. Day et al., as Trustees, etc., defendants-appellants.

*Marcus G. Christ, County Attorney (John J. Knob*and *G. Bur chard Smith*of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Appeal by the defendant-trustees dismissed, without costs, on the ground they are not aggrieved parties. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lottghban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
Exhibit 99.8




Graphic
KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants

PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street

Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3

Canada
Telephone     (604) 691-3000

Fax(604) 691-3031

Internetwww.kpmg.ca
  
   
   Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  
 
 The Board of Directors
 Keegan Resources Inc.
  We consent to the use of our reports, each dated June 28, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in this annual report on Form 40-F.
   
   
 Chartered Accountants
  June 29, 2012
 Vancouver, Canada




KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG
 network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
 (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.
 KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7003 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7003

 To amend the National Landslide Preparedness Act to reauthorize such 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2024

 Ms. DelBene (for herself, Ms. Schrier, Ms. Perez, Ms. Strickland, Mr. 
    Kilmer, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Larsen of 
Washington, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Ms. Bonamici, and Mr. Newhouse) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, 
   and Technology, 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 National Landslide Preparedness Act to reauthorize such 
                                  Act.

    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 ``National Landslide Preparedness Act 
Reauthorization Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL LANDSLIDE PREPAREDNESS ACT REAUTHORIZATION.

    The National Landslide Preparedness Act (43 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) in section 3(h) (43 U.S.C. 3102(h)), by striking ``2021 
        through 2024'' and inserting ``2024 through 2028''; and
            (2) in section 5(e), by striking ``2021 through 2024'' and 
        inserting ``2024 through 2028''.
                                 <all>
```
Septem ber22;-20lb'ry.'':":"^^ "'"•-' -^^ ^-. ^^;i :..::.,: --v-^--^ " • ^''i;^';'T"'^ - ^•- ^^"x-'- ^-Ha55;"0-^^:--^i 

US Dcparlineiit of Transpoit^ition 

Ms. Brnokfi Chapman 

Transportation Industry Analyst 

1200 New)erseyAveSE 

Washington, DC 20590 

PU J CO 

Re: Sarasota Bradenton International Application for Small Community Air Service 

Development Grant, Docket UOT-OST-2010-0124 

Dear Ms. Chapman, 

On behalf of the Manatee Kconomic Development Council, please accept this letter in 

support of the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority's grant application under DOTOST-2010-U124. 

We fully support this grant application for funding to increase and strengthen the 

airpoit's maii<eting initiatives. The need exists due to the devastating impact the BP 

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has had on our local businesses and economy. The oil 

spill has caused a severe drop in Gulf Coast tourism and awarding this grant is 

paramount to returning passenger levels in our region to historic levels. 

Additionally, we fully support the award of grant funds for the purchase of airport 

ground handling equipnricnt (GSE) which will lower operating costs and make our 

airport and community more competitive with larger airports in the region. 

Thank you for including this letter with the Sarasota Manatee Grant Application and 

for considering our support when evaluating their request. 

Sincerely, 

Erlc.Basinger-CEcD 

Executive Director 

l^^ft^KliiS^ft^te^^ftSfiMSW^ftfcliMiftlSS^^
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6984 

To designate the Federal building located at 300 E. 3rd Street in North 

Platte, Nebraska, as the ‘‘Virginia Smith Federal Building’’, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2024 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. BACON, and Mr. FLOOD) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 300 E. 3rd 

Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the ‘‘Virginia Smith 

Federal Building’’, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VIRGINIA SMITH FEDERAL BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

5 300 E. 3rd Street in North Platte, Nebraska, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Virginia Smith Federal 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6984 IH

1 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

2 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Virginia 

3 Smith Federal Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Mary E. Strance et al., Appellants, *v.*Martin’s, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Argued June 16, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*630
      *Solomon Pearlman*and *Louis Barnett*for appellants.

*William B. Davis*and *E. C. Sherwood*for respondent.

Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event on the ground that the evidence presents questions of fact in regard to the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiffs ’ freedom from contributory negligence. No opinion.

Concur: Lottghran, Rippey, Lewis and Conway, JJ. Dissenting: Lehman, Ch. J., Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04091]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11663]


Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State will host a virtual, open meeting of 
the Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee (CERAC). There will not 
be an in-person option for this meeting.

DATES: 
    Date and Time: CERAC will meet virtually March 15, 2022 from 11:00 
to 12:30 (EST).
    Participation: Members of the public wishing to participate must 
RSVP by March 8, 2022 via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7330362132303300071207165d141c05"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f4c4a5d4e4c4f7c7b6e7b6a21686079">[email protected]</span></a> (subject line: 
RSVP). The Department will provide login information prior to the 
meeting. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be submitted no 
later than March 8, 2022. Reasonable accommodation requests received 
after that date will be considered, but may not be possible to fulfill.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Energy Resources Senior 
Energy Officer Sara Ferchichi at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6427213625272417100510014a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e7d7b6c7f7d7e4d4a5f4a5b10595148">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose: This Committee will provide input and advice regarding 
energy minerals and metals, their supply chains, and end uses. The 
purpose of this inaugural meeting is to provide introductions and 
discuss priorities for the Committee moving forward.
    Statements: Comments should be emailed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e7d7b6c7f7d7e4d4a5f4a5b10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3271776073717241465346571c555d44">[email protected]</span></a> with 
``PUBLIC COMMENT'' as the subject line at least 48 hours before the 
start of the meeting. During this meeting, there will not be an option 
for members of the public to make oral statements.

Zachary A. Parker,
Director, Office of Directives Management, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-04091 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AE-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Leonard Gordainer, Resp’t, v. George H. Northrup, App’lt.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.