alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1617

RICHARD E. FOSTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF

W. T. (TOMMY) MCDOWELL, Fire Marshall; L. H.

GODFREY, Assistant Fire Marshall; R. A. COOK;

KENNY V. CROSBY, Director of Human Resources,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-01-4824)

Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard E. Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Casey Brown, GALLIVAN,

WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard E. Foster appeals the district court’s order

dismissing individual defendants from his employment discrimination

action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.

541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY


April 16, 1999


Mr. Robert Nierman
2801 East Lake of Isles
Minneapolis, MN  55408

Dear Bob:

     I am very pleased to offer to you the position of Chief  Operating  Officer
and  Executive  Vice  President  of  Engineering   Animation,   Inc.  With  your
experience,  reputation,  and knowledge of the industry, I am confident that you
will be an invaluable  member of my management team. In this position,  you will
report directly to me and you will be responsible for all operations of EAI.

     The  compensation  package for this  position  includes an annual salary of
$300,000  and an  annual  bonus of an equal  amount.  The bonus  amount  will be
prorated from the date of employment and will paid  quarterly,  commencing  with
the third  quarter.  In addition,  you will be granted a stock option which will
permit you to purchase 225,000 shares of EAI common stock. The total life of the
option will be ten years and will vest over a period of four years from the date
of grant.  Additional  compensation items will include an auto allowance of $750
per month and a life insurance  policy with a face amount of $500,000 payable to
your chosen beneficiary.

     As  agreed,  we will also  provide a  severance  benefit  to you which will
provide that in the event of your  termination  following a change of control in
the first  eighteen  months  of your  employment,  you will be paid a  severance
amount equal to three times the total of your current  salary and bonus.  In the
event of a termination  following a change of control after eighteen months, you
will  receive a severance  benefit  equal to two times your  current  salary and
bonus.  As part of our  agreement,  you also  agree  that  you will  sign an EAI
standard non-competition agreement.

     Naturally,  you will also receive EAI's standard benefits package of health
and dental insurance, 401(k) matching contributions,  paid time off, and similar
benefits.

     Bob, I have asked Jamie Wade,  our  General  Counsel,  to add a draft of an
employment  agreement  to this letter  along with other  employment  information
materials.  If the terms as stated in this  letter are as we  discussed,  please
execute  the copy of this letter at the bottom and return it to my office by fax
at  515-296-6941.  Please  contact Jamie prior to sending the fax so that we can
maintain confidentiality. If the employment agreement does not address the terms
as you  understand  them,  or if you have any  questions,  please  feel  free to
contact Jamie Wade at  515-296-6839  or at  515-290-3638  (cell) or 515-292-6974
(home).  If you  would  like to speak to me,  please  leave  me a  voicemail  at
515-296-9920 letting me know the best time to contact you from Japan.

     Bob, we have  gathered some of the best people in the country to accomplish
EAI's goals, and your addition to the team will help us capture the lead in this
industry.

Sincerely,

/s/Matthew Rizai

Matthew Rizai
President and CEO



I accept the terms of employment as stated in this letter.


/s/ Robert Nierman

Robert Nierman
IB 

House Calendar No. 98 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6984 

[Report No. 118–815] 

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 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6984 RH

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. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6984 RH

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 

10 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

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

12 Smith Federal Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 98 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6984 

[Report No. 118–815] 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 300 E. 

purposes. ‘‘Virginia Smith Federal Building’’, and for other 3rd Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2



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 months ended September 30, 2004 (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: November 26, 2004 |  | /s/ Fernando Sanchez   
|                         |  | Fernando Sanchez       
|                         |  | Chief Financial 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.
# L_2005110DE.01008401.xml

| 30.4.2005 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 110/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 110/84

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1262/2001 der Kommission vom 27. Juni 2001 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1260/2001 des Rates betreffend den Ankauf und Verkauf von Zucker durch die Interventionsstellen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 178 vom 30. Juni 2001
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 178 vom 30. Juni 2001

Seite 50, Artikel 1 Absatz 1 Buchstaben a und b:

anstatt:

| „a) | Inhaber einer Grundquote und |
| --- | --- |

„a)

Inhaber einer Grundquote und

| b) | ein im Zuckersektor spezialisierter Handelsbetrieb ist, der von dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem er seine Niederlassung hat, zugelassen ist.“ |
| --- | --- |

b)

ein im Zuckersektor spezialisierter Handelsbetrieb ist, der von dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem er seine Niederlassung hat, zugelassen ist.“

muss es heißen:

| „a) | Inhaber einer Grundquote ist; |
| --- | --- |

„a)

Inhaber einer Grundquote ist;

| b) | ein im Zuckersektor spezialisierter Handelsbetrieb ist, der von dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem er seine Niederlassung hat, zugelassen ist.“ |
| --- | --- |

b)

ein im Zuckersektor spezialisierter Handelsbetrieb ist, der von dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem er seine Niederlassung hat, zugelassen ist.“

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John F. Jef CURRAN, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7825

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 8, 2017

*712John F. Jef Curran, III, Appellant Pro Se. Leo Joseph Wise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John F. Jef Curran, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); *Buck v. Davis,*— U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). A certificate of appealability. will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Whep the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curran has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Curran’s motions to file a supplemental brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the other 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*
#### RONG JING WU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General,* Respondent.

14-2228

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 23, 2017

FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael Brown, P.C., New York, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; John D. Williams, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions, III, is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as the Respondent in this case.

*778SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Rong Jing Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 2, 2014 decision of the BIA affirming a September 10, 2012 decision of an Immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Wu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In re Rong Jing Wu,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 2, 2014), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 10, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s opinion, “including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA.” *Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); *Yanqin Weng v. Holder,*562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

We have held that although remand may be “required because of [an] IJ’s apparent bias and hostility toward” a petitioner, such cases are “rare,” *Guo-Le Huang v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 142, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). Wu argues that this is one of those rare cases.

Wu’s argument is based on the fact that, of the several inconsistencies identified by the IJ, the major one was elicited by the IJ’s own questioning, rather than that of the government attorney. Wu asks us to infer from this fact that the IJ was biased. We decline to do so. The IJ was complying with his statutory obligation to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l). Moreover, an IJ may rely on dramatic inconsistencies without seeking explanation. *Ming Shi Xue v. BIA,*439 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2006). According an applicant an opportunity to rehabilitate inconsistent testimony therefore does not violate due process. Beyond the inference that she asks us to draw, Wu has identified no comments or questions by the IJ that raise eyen a slight suggestion of bias. *Cf. Ali v. Mukasey,*529 F.3d 478, 490-93 (2d Cir. 2008); *Guo-Le Huang,*453 F.3d at 149. Accordingly, the IJ did not violate Wu’s due process rights, and there is no cause for remand.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
#### Rongqing WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73409

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 20, 2016

Rongqing Wang, Pro Se

Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, John D. Williams, Esquire, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rongqing Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immi*966gration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider new evidence that was not part of the record before the agency. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The record does not compel the conclusion that the mistreatment Wang suffered in China, even if credible, rose to the level of past persecution. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); *see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding [the court] must find that the evidence not only *supports*that conclusion, but *compels*it”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Wang did not establish a well-founded fear- of future persecution. *See Gu,*454 F.3d at 1021-22. Thus, we deny the petition as to Wang’s asylum claim.

Because Wang did not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Wang failed to establish that he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a government official if returned to China. *See Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
             RFMSI SERIES 2006-S11 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Executive Vice President
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
NCS HealthCare, Inc. and Subsidiaries


We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of NCS
HealthCare, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 1998, and the
related condensed consolidated statements of income, and the condensed
consolidated statements of cash flows for the six month periods ended December
31, 1998 and 1997. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be performed
for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements referred
to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of NCS HealthCare, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, not
presented herein, and in our report dated August 6, 1998, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of June 30, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


Cleveland, Ohio                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
February 12, 1999



                                       17
# EUR-Lex - 32001F0888 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001F0888

**Council Framework Decision of 6 December 2001 amending Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro **

*
Official Journal L 329 , 14/12/2001 P. 0003 - 0003 *

Council Framework Decision

of 6 December 2001

amending Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro

(2001/888/JHA)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(e) and Article 34(2)(b) thereof,

Having regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden(1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

(1) The Council adopted on 29 May 2000 Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro(2).

(2) The measures in Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA should be supplemented by a provision on the recognition of previous convictions regarding offences referred to in that Framework Decision,

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION:

Article 1

The following Article shall be inserted after Article 9 of Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA: "Article 9a

Recognition of previous convictions

Every Member State shall recognise the principle of the recognition of previous convictions under the conditions prevailing under its domestic law and, under those same conditions, shall recognise for the purpose of establishing habitual criminality final sentences handed down in another Member State for the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 5 of this Framework Decision, or the offences referred to in Article 3 of the Convention, irrespective of the currency counterfeited."

Article 2

Implementation

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with this Framework Decision by 31 December 2002.

2. By 31 December 2002, the Member States shall transmit to the General Secretariat of the Council, the Commission and the European Central Bank the text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed on them under this Framework Decision.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Framework Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 6 December 2001.

For the Council

The President

M. Verwilghen

(1) OJ C 225, 10.8.2001, p. 9.

(2) OJ L 140, 14.6.2000, p. 1.