alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey A. MARTINOVICH, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey A. Martinovich, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6651, No. 17-6652

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 30, 2017

Decided: November 7, 2017

Jeffrey A. Martinovich, Appellant Pro Se. V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Kevin Patrick Hudson, Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent ip this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Martinovich appeals the district court’s orders correcting his restitution orders. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Martinovich,*Nos. 4:12-cr-00101-AWA-RJK-1; 4:15-cr-00050-AWA-LRL-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2017; Apr. 6, 2017). 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*
#### Paul BUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert Lee POMMER; Sharon Pommer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15019

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 23, 2017

*674Paul Bush, Pro Se

Michael Gary Kelley, Esquire, Attorney, Thomas Markson Rubin & Kelley PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Bush appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a property dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bush’s trespass claim because Bush failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had possession of the land at issue. *See MacNeil v. Perkins,*84 Ariz. 74, 324 P.2d 211, 216 (1958) (under Arizona law, “[a] trespasser is one who does an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful manner to the injury of the person or property of another” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Bush’s remaining claims because Bush failed to raise them in his opening brief. *See Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 1994) (matter not specifically and distinctly argued in opening brief is waived on review).

Bush’s requests for oral argument and to strike defendants’ motion for summary judgment from the record, set forth in his opening brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

December 21, 2016

153689 & (62)

IBTIHAJ SHAMMOUT, a Minor, by her Next

Friend, HANI SHAMMOUT and ARWA

SHAMMOUT,

Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross- Appellants,

v SC: 153689

COA: 323532

Kalamazoo CC: 12-000251-NI

KALAMAZOO JAYCEE,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross- Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

DASTOLI & ASSOCIATES, INC. a/k/a UNITED

RENTAL,

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

SHAWARMA KING, INC.,

Defendant,

and

SHAWARMA KING FOUR, INC.,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant- Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

and

EVENTS, INC.,

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Cross- Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 21, 2016

s1214

2

Clerk

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellants are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

BERNSTEIN, J., did not participate due to his prior relationship with the Sam 

Bernstein Law Firm.
For The Three Months Ended
                                                             October 31
                                                        2002             2001
                                                    ------------    ------------


Shares outstanding                                    8,780,899      6,954,699
                                                     ----------     ----------
Weighted average shares outstanding                   8,731,967      6,973,987
Stock Options                                         3,691,250      1,815,625
                                                     ----------     ----------
       Total weighted average shares outstanding     12,423,217      8,789,612
                                                     ==========     ==========

Net loss                                           $   (478,825)   $  (381,071)
                                                   ============    ===========

Basic and diluted net loss per share               $      (0.05)   $     (0.05)
                                                   ============    ===========
Bo.ise Paper 

Administration 

400 Second Street, International Falls, MN 56649 

T 218.285.5664 F 208.3:31.5773 

'j ~-... :·· ; 

August 15, 2012 

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

On behalf of Boise Inc. and the 850 employees at our International Falls, Minnesota, 

paper mill, I am writing in strong support of the SkyWest Airlines Inc. bid to bring service 

to the area. 

Service by SkyWest Airlines would allow us to continue to provide timely customer 

support. This is critical to our operation as any delay in response time could potentially 

result in the loss of customers. 

In addition to customer support, we also rely on suppliers to resp'OhCfto our needs. 

Their delay could result in additional hours of lost productivity and our inability to meet 

customer delivery requirements. 

We believe that SkyWest Airlines would serve our business needs and we ask you to 

accept the SkyWest bid to serve the International Falls airport. 

Sincerely, 

Gc~ Bert Brown 

Mill Manager 

xc: Mr. Brad Rawson, SkyWest Airlines Inc. 

Falls Airport Commission 

International Falls City Council 

Koochiching County Board of Commissioners
_________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137045 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, In re SARAH ROSS, JACOB FULTON, JORDAN Justices 

FULTON and TYLER FULTON, Minors. 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 137045 

 COA: 282514 

Clinton CC Family Division:

05-017968-NA 

AMBER ROSS, 

Respondent-Appellee, 

and 

TROY FULTON,

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REINSTATE the November 26, 2007 order of the Clinton Circuit Court, Family 

Division, terminating the respondent-mother’s parental rights to the minor children. The 

Court of Appeals misapplied the clear error standard by substituting its judgment for that 

of the trial court, MCR 2.613(C); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331 (1989), and rendered a 

decision that was contrary to the clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of 

the respondent-mother’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). 

We REMAND this case to the Clinton Circuit Court, Family Division for further 

proceedings not inconsistent with this order. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

MARKMAN, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

s0910 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 17, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 788 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 788

To delay the effective date of trucking deregulation under the Federal 
           Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 10 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

   Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To delay the effective date of trucking deregulation under the Federal 
           Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DELAY IN EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 601(d) of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization 
Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. 10521 note) is amended by striking ``on January 
1, 1995;'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of this 
Act,''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5946 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5946

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
  any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games or the 
                            Paralympic Games.

    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 ``United States Appreciation for 
Olympians and Paralympians Act of 2016''.
SEC. 2. OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC MEDALS AND USOC PRIZE MONEY EXCLUDED 
FROM GROSS INCOME.
    (a) In General.--Section 74 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Exception for Olympic and Paralympic Medals and Prizes.--
        ``(1) In general.--Gross income shall not include the value of 
    any medal awarded in, or any prize money received from the United 
    States Olympic Committee on account of, competition in the Olympic 
    Games or Paralympic Games.
        ``(2) Limitation based on adjusted gross income.--
            ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
        taxpayer for any taxable year if the adjusted gross income 
        (determined without regard to this subsection) of such taxpayer 
        for such taxable year exceeds $1,000,000 (half of such amount 
        in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).
            ``(B) Coordination with other limitations.--For purposes of 
        sections 86, 135, 137, 199, 219, 221, 222, and 469, adjusted 
        gross income shall be determined after the application of 
        paragraph (1) and before the application of subparagraph 
        (A).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to prizes and awards received after December 31, 2015.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# AMERICAN AIRLINES

January 2 9 , 2013

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: American Airlines, Application for A llocation of F our

W eekly C ombination F requencies (U.S.

- Ecuador) (DOT

- OST

2009

- 0220)

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

We have completed our poll of the carrier parties served with the

captioned application on January 22, 2013. There are no objections.

Accordingly, we request favorable action o n an expedited basis.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________ Francis C. Heil

Senior Attorney

American Airlines, Inc.

1101 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20590

(202) 496

- 5642

francis.heil@aa.com

cc: Docket Branch

Brian Hedberg

Service list

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the

foregoing document by email on the following persons:

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

dan.weiss@united.com

urskr@st ate.gov

______________________

Francis C. Heil

Senior Attorney

American Airlines, Inc.

January 29, 2013
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAMES M. HOOKS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1301

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 21-731, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________ 

Decided: July 12, 2024

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter 

Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant. 

Also represented by KENT A. EILER. 

 MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. 

Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES 

GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON,

Case: 23-1301 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2024
2 HOOKS v. MCDONOUGH

BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Before CHEN, STOLL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

James M. Hooks appeals the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans 

Court) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) finding no clear and unmistakable error in a 

2002 administrative decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Hooks v. McDonough, No. 21-0731, 2022 

WL 4285679 (Vet. App. Sept. 16, 2022). The VA found that 

Mr. Hooks’s discharge under other than honorable conditions was “considered to have been issued under dishonorable conditions” due to Mr. Hooks’s “willful and persistent 

misconduct.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d), (d)(4) (2002). 

Mr. Hooks makes the following arguments to this court: (1)

section 3.12(d)(4) has no statutory predicate; (2) the plain 

meaning of “willful and persistent conduct” is ambiguous; 

and (3) the Veterans Court erred by relying upon a misinterpretation of the term “persistent,” as used in section 

3.12(d)(4) as codified at the time of the VA’s decision. Because Mr. Hooks did not present these arguments to either 

the Board or the Veterans Court, Mr. Hooks may not do so 

here. See Gurley v. McDonough, 23 F.4th 1353, 1357 (Fed. 

Cir. 2022) (arguments not raised to the Veterans Court are 

forfeited).

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Veterans 

Court. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1301 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2024
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05099]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731-TA-1164-1165 (Second Review)]


Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From China and Taiwan

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on imports of 
narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (``narrow woven ribbons'') 
from China and antidumping duty orders on narrow woven ribbons from 
China and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of material injury to an industry in the United States within a 
reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on August 2, 2021 (86 FR 
41514), and determined on November 5, 2021, that it would conduct 
expedited reviews (87 FR 7498, February 9, 2022).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on March 7, 2022. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5292 (March 2022), 
entitled Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from China and 
Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731 TA 1164-1165 (Second 
Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 7, 2022.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-05099 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
**EXHIBIT 31.1** **CERTIFICATIONS**     I, George W. Taylor, certify that:      1.     I have reviewed this Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc.;      2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue    statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact    necessary to make the statements made, in light of the    circumstances under which such statements were made, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;      3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other    financial information included in this report, fairly present in    all material respects the financial condition, results of    operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the    periods presented in this report;      4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:      (a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our    supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the    registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made    known to us by others within those entities, particularly during    the period in which this report is being prepared;      (b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure    controls and procedures and presented in this report our    conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls    and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this    report based on such evaluation; and      (c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during    the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the    registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual    report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to    materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over    financial reporting; and      5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have    disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors:      (a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the    design or operation of internal control over financial reporting    which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and      (b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or    other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. /s/  GEORGE    W. TAYLOR    George W. Taylor    Chief Executive Officer     Dated: July 27, 2007
Served: May 13, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

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

### SKYWEST AIRLINES

, INC

.

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



### NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME

On May 12, 2011

, SkyWest Airlines Inc. (“ SkyWest ”)

, a U.S

. certificated air carrier, 1 request ed that the

Department regist e r the trade name “ Alas kaSkywest ” for use in certain air transportation operations

.

Part 215 (14 CFR Part 215) of the Department’s regulations provides that any air carrier wishing to use

an alternative trade name must first register that name with the Department. The rule further state s that

the Department may register such name after the air carrier gives notification to similarly named air

carriers of the proposed use of the name. In this case, SkyWest states that Alaska Airlines, Inc.

(“Alaska”), a U.S. certificated air carrier, 2 consent s to the registration of the trade name

.

We note that SkyWest state s that Alaska will make all required discl osures of the identity of the

operating air carrier and trade name in accordance with the provisions of Part 257 of the Department’s

regu lations (14 CFR Part 257)

. In addi tion, SkyWest states that the aircraft to be used to operate service

on behalf of Alaska will clearly indicate that SkyWest is the operating carrier.

Since SkyWest has complied with the requirements of Part 215, we acknowledge the registration of the

trade name “AlaskaSkywest ” for immediate use in its operations.

Dated at Washington, D.C. , May 13 , 2011

.

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http:// www.regulations.gov

1 SkyWest’s i nterstate certificate was last reissued by Order 98

- 7

- 6, on July 8, 1998.

2 Alaska’s interstate certificate was last reissued by Order 98

- 7

- 6, on July 8, 1998.Attachment A

SE RVICE LIST FOR SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.

MR GERALD MURPHY

COUNSEL FOR SKYWEST AIRLINES INC

CROWELL AND MORING LLP

1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

WASHINGTON DC 20 004 MR BERNARD STANKUS RTS

- 42

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E

- 36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

MR DANIEL NYE

SENIOR ATTORNEY

ALASKA AIRLINES INC

19300 INTERNATIONAL BLVD

SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98198 MR WILLIAM J WEBER

CERTIFICATION MANAGE R

FAA AFS

- 900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

MR TODD EMERSON

SKYWEST AIRLINES INC

444 SOUTH RIVER ROAD

ST GEORGE UTAH 84790 MR PETER LYNCH

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR E NFORCEMENT

FAA / AGC

- 300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591

MS ANNE SUISSA

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E

- 36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590