alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Devany, Dennis (OST)
From: JULIE ROSS [julieross57@msn.com] Sent: ,Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:32 AM 

### To:--

. Devany, Dennis (OST) 

### Cc: Swanson, Brian (OST) Subject: keep Cape Air in Plattsburgh, NY

... As

## ~lifei~ngresident ofPlattsburgh, NY, I have watched oursmall airportgrow into much larger, busierand more accessible airport with the opening several years ago ofthe new airport built

### on the formerPAFB. I have used Cape Airservice 

### a number oftimes 

### to fly my son home from Boston, knowing that each time he would have 

### a safe and

### on time flight experience. Cape Airhas been efficient, timely, reliable and most importantly, very affordable. There service has been one ofthe big reasons ournew airport has grown into it's own, and I for one heartily reject ourLegislator's vote 

### to replace Cape Air with Colgan Air. I know little about Colgan andam not criticizing there service in general

- I just don't feel we, as a community, need 

### to bring in larger, more expensive flights, when Cape Airhas served us 

### so well. There have been many occasions when Cape Air's flights (9 passengers) were not full, 

### so why do we need largerplanes for such 

### a short flight? Further, Cape Airprovides more frequent flights, making connecting travel arrangements simple, and they are willing 

### to do all this for 

### a much lowersetprice than Colgan. IfColgan remains the airline ofchoice, and theirprices rise (which seems apparent as their target range Is $75-125 each way), I will

### no longer find flying out of Plattsburgh affordable and will be willing 

### to take the drive 

### to Burlington, VTorAlbany, NY 

### to make flight arrangements

- sort of.defeats the purpose 

### of having that bigger, more· expensive airline here doesn't it? Please exercise your decision making powers and goodjudgement, and over-ride the Clinton County Legislator's recomendation

- your doing 

### so is not

### a reflection 

### on theirgood intentions or their commitment 

### to community, but

### an expression of

### a more experienced voice ofreason. Maybe, before 

### a decision is made, 

### a targeted, reliable community survey should be done

- not one that surveys the Canadian traveleras done before, but one that actually reflects the needs ofthe community this airport was built 

### to serve - that might be the telling factor about why Cape Airshould remain the airline ofchoice!!!!! Thank You Julie G. RoSs Plattsburgh, NY 518561-3260

1
bedu-ex411_509.htm



Exhibit 4.11

Rights and Obligations Assumption Letter

 

This entity, Huaian City Bright Scholar Tianshan Culture Education Investment Management Co., Ltd., is the subsidiary established by BGY Education Investment Management Co., Ltd. (“Investor”) and registered in Huaian City at the Huaiyin branch office of the Administration for Industry and Commerce on March 7, 2017.The Investor holds 70% of the equity interests in this entity. 

In accordance with the Exclusive Management Service and Business Cooperation Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into by and between Investor, Zhuhai Hengqin Bright Scholar Management Consulting Co., Ltd. and other relevant parties on January 25, 2017, this entity shall join the Agreement according to Article 10.1 of the Agreement as a “New Subsidiary of Party B” under the Agreement. 

This entity hereby agrees to join the Agreement as a “New Subsidiary of Party B” of the Investor, enjoy the rights under the Agreement, and perform the obligations according to the Agreement. This Assumption Letter came into effect upon the date of execution. 

 

Huaian City Bright Scholar Tianshan Culture Education Investment Management Co., Ltd.

(Seal) Seal of Huaian City Bright Scholar Tianshan Culture Education Investment Management Co., Ltd. Affixed

 


	
By:
	
/s/ Jinsheng Cheng

	
Name:
	
Jinsheng Cheng

	
Title:
	
Legal Representative

	
Date:
	
May 18, 2017
No. 11-11023.

#### Flemming *v.*New York et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 140 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 140

 Expressing the sense of Congress that before the consideration of any 
    legislation regarding the comprehensive tobacco settlement each 
plaintiff attorney shall fully disclose the attorney's anticipated fees 
               as a result of such settlement agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 1997

 Mr. McInnis submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of Congress that before the consideration of any 
    legislation regarding the comprehensive tobacco settlement each 
plaintiff attorney shall fully disclose the attorney's anticipated fees 
               as a result of such settlement agreement.

Whereas the average American earned $25,852 in 1994;
Whereas the average Colorado citizen earned $74 per day in 1995;
Whereas the average hourly wage earner earns $12.14 per hour in the United 
        States;
Whereas those involved in negotiating a comprehensive tobacco settlement are 
        entitled to reasonable compensation for their services; and
Whereas : Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) 
That it is the sense of Congress that before the consideration of any 
legislation regarding the comprehensive tobacco settlement each 
plaintiff attorney shall fully disclose the attorney's anticipated fees 
as a result of such settlement agreement.
                                 <all>
```
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 00236

- CV
RAMESH KAPUR, DBA AI C MANAGEMENT COMPANY , Appellant

V.

CASSANDRA PLEASANT , Appellee
Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1013763 ).

This is an appeal from a judgment signed December 11, 2013. Appellant, Ramesh Kapur, dba AIC Management Company , did not timely file a brief. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. It is
therefore CONSIDERED
, ADJUDGED , and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution

.

The Court orders t hat the appellant, Ramesh Kapur, dba AIC Management Company, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.Judgment rendered September 29, 2015. Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting

of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

y
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, George T. Shaheen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Siebel Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Siebel Systems, Inc.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 4th day of November 2005.



|/s/ George T. Shaheen
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Kenneth A. Goldman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Siebel Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Siebel Systems, Inc.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 4th day of November 2005.



|/s/ Kenneth A. Goldman
Senior Vice President, Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Siebel Systems, Inc. under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1

Expressing the sense of the Congress that retirement benefits for Members

of Congress should not be subject to cost-of-living adjustments.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. COBLE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition

to the Committee on House Oversight, 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

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that retirement benefits

for Members of Congress should not be subject to costof-living adjustments.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that re3 tirement benefits should not, to the extent that they are

4 based on the service of an individual as a Member of Con5 gress, be subject to cost-of-living adjustments.

Æ
#### QI LI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-73142

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 22, 2018

Qi Li, Pro Se

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

*305Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, 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 **

Qi Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s application of the extraordinary circumstances exception to undisputed facts. *Singh v. Holder,*656 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2011). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. *Jiang v. Holder,*754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Li established extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely-filed asylum application. *See 8*C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(5). Thus, we deny the petition for review.

We reject, as unsupported by the record, Li’s claim that the IJ was biased. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Li’s other contentions regarding the sufficiency of his corroborative evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 108

Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 26, 1997

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, June 26, 1997, it stand adjourned

4 until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 8, 1997, or until noon

5 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem6 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

7 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses

8 or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, June

9 26, 1997, Friday, June 27, 1997, Saturday, June 28,

10 1997, or Sunday, June 29, 1997, pursuant to a motion

11 made by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in accord12 ance with this concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or
2

HCON 108 ATH

1 adjourned until noon on Monday, July 7, 1997, or such

2 time on that day as may be specified by the Majority

3 Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn,

4 or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

5 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res6 olution, whichever occurs first.

7 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

8 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

9 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead10 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

11 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

12 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
# L_2014342EN.01006501.xml

| 27.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 342/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/65

---

NOTE TO THE READER

| Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 127/2014 has been withdrawn prior to adoption and is therefore blank. |
| --- |

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 127/2014 has been withdrawn prior to adoption and is therefore blank.

---
June 11, 2012

No. 11-836.

#### Hartman et al. *v.*Moore.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Reichle*v. *Howards,*566 U. S. 658 (2012).
# United States Court of Appeals **For the First Circuit**

No. 00-1703
NILDA M. SALDANA-SANCHEZ; RAFAEL DELGADO-MESTRE; JUAN NIEVESSANTIAGO; MIGUEL RAMOS-CRUZ; SINFORIANO CASTILLO-GARCIA; JULIO C. MOJICA-UBILES; MIGUEL A. OCASIO-SANTOS; MARGARITA POUPARTFONTANEZ; HILDA TORRES-PENA; MINERVA PACHOT-RIVERA; JOSE L. ORTIZ-ORTIZ; ZULMA RIVERA-ORTIZ; ANGEL L. RODRIGUEZ-LAZU; LUZ R. DIAZ-MORALES; JOSE L. BAEZ-RODRIGUEZ; JOSE IVAN CASTILLO-ORTIZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, LUZ M. ORTIZ-QUINTANA, Plaintiff,

v. JULIO CESAR LOPEZ-GERENA, Mayor of the Municipality of

Humacao; RAMON VEGA-SOSA, Defendants-Appellees, MARGARITA GONZALEZ-VAZQUEZ; RAUL FERRER

Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on July 12, 2001, is amended as follows: On page 9, after the word “dismissed” at the end of the page, add a new footnote 10, reading: Dismissal was sought by the plaintiffs on the ground that the issues presented in the second appeal duplicated those in the first, and was granted, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Although the dismissal of the second appealprecludes our direct review of the denial of reconsideration,

there has been no suggestion that the dismissal affects our ability to rely on the district court's written opinion -- issued in connection with the second appeal -- as setting out the court's reasons for granting the protective order in the first instance. On page 12, line 19, strike the phrase “and later denial of reconsideration.” On page 12, line 21, replace “these orders” with “this order” in both instances, and replace “were” with “was.” On page 12, line 21, replace “'final decisions'” with “a 'final decision.'”
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Support for Conferences and Scientific Meetings (Parent R13 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         April 27-29, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G53, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Konrad Krzewski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G53, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-747-7526,                         *konrad.krzewski@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 21, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-06297 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### The Honorable Michael James Davis, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report an d recommendation of the Honorabl e Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2089

___________ Warren E. Nelson, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Kenneth D. Butler, individually * and as an attorney member, * Appeal from the United States currently of Clure, Eaton, Butler* District Court for the Law Office and formerly of Van * District of Minnesota. Evera, Clure, Butler & Michelson,* P.A. law firms respectively; * [UNPUBLISHED] David R. Michelson, individually * and as an attorney member, * currently of Clure, Eaton, * Butler Law Office and formerly of* Van Evera, Clure, Butler & * Michelson, P.A., law firms * respectively, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 7, 1997 Filed: March 24, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Wa rren E. Nelson appeals from the district court's order grantin g 1
sum mary judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Havin g carefully reviewed the record and the briefs, we conclude summary judgment was proper and the district court did not

### -2-

abu se its discretion in granting defendants a permanent injunction. A n extended opinion would therefore lack precedenti al value. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretio n by conducting a hearing on defendants' summary judgment motion prior to th e deadline for completion of discovery, and granting summary judgment severa l months later. See Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co. , 840 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (standard of review); cf. Bright v. Standard Register Co. , 66 F.3d 171, 172 (8th Cir. 19 95) (per curiam). Finally, we deny Nelson's request for oral argument.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT