alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DAVID M EDNANSKY, individua lly and M AR TINE M EDNANSKY, individua lly . De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 13-55662

D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01307-M M AB GS
ORDER

B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and HAW KINS a nd M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s. The m e m orandum

disposition file d on Se pte m be r 4, 2015, 2015 W

L 5167842, is a

m e nde d a s follows: On pa ge 2, line 13, the te xt < 83.3(g)(1)> is de le t e d a nd re pla c e d

with < 83.3(f)(1)> . The pa ne l ha s vote d to de ny

the pe tition for re he aring. The full c ourt ha s be e n a dvise d of the pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc and no judge of the c ourt ha s re que ste d a vote on whe the r to re he ar the m a tte r e n ba nc . Fe d. R . App. P. 35. Appe lla nt’ s pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc is de nie d. No furthe r pe titions sha

ll be e n te rta i ne d. 

# FIL ED NOV 10 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS
# C_2014409EN.01006501.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/65

---

Order of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)

(Case T-509/13) (1)

1

2014/C 409/86

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended August 1, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rajeev Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
for the periods presented therein.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    RAJEEV
MADHAVANRajeev MadhavanChief Executive OfficerSeptember 9, 2010
No. 09-804.

#### CIGNA Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Janice C. Amara, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated.

562 U.S. 1041, 131 S. Ct. 624,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8870.

178 L. Ed. 2d 432,

November 15, 2010.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
No. 10-152.

#### Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum, Petitioner v. State Farm Insurance Company.

562 U.S. 961, 131 S. Ct. 459,

178 L. Ed. 2d 287,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7983.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 217.
No. 10-340.

#### Bruce Jackim, Petitioner v. Ohio.

562 U.S. 982, 131 S. Ct. 427,

178 L. Ed. 2d 324,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8147.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.

Same case below, 125 Ohio St. 3d 1416, 925 N.E.2d 1003.
2016-1803.

#### State v. Simpson.

Lake App. No. 2016-L-014, 2016-Ohio-7746.

O’Donnell, J., dissents and would accept the cause on proposition of law No. II.
# Distribution’s Oehm reflects on her “day as an Army Reservist”

/ Published June 15, 2016

When DLA Distribution’s Army Reserve Element team leader and Joint Reserve Task Force commander Col. Ronnie Davis asked for civilian volunteers for an Army Reserve mission he was coordinating, Danielle Oehm says she was surprised no hands went up.
“I’ve worked for the government since I was 19 and spent 25 years serving my country in the Air Force and Ohio Air National Guard, but I’ve never had an opportunity like this.  I couldn’t believe no one volunteered.  I assumed because I work with mostly veterans that they have all ‘been there - done that.’  But I hadn’t, so I told Colonel Davis I was in,” said Oehm.

Oehm says when she volunteered to document the event and represent DLA Distribution in the training exercise which involved an early morning Chinook flight from New Cumberland to Fort Indiantown Gap and land navigation exercise, she knew it would be a challenge.  

Donning her Army shirt, heavy socks and boots, Oehm arrived for the 0600 kickoff in the steady rain.  “We flew from New Cumberland to Ft. Indiantown Gap.  Nobody told me to take a knee when the helicopter was landing, and I was almost swept down the hill from the force.”  

Upon arrival at Ft. Indiantown Gap, the group completed a land navigation exercise.  Oehm describes climbing steep, rain-slicked hills, through streams, and over trees, determined to find the points and conquer the mission.  “I only fell once; well maybe twice.  My feet were so wet, but I persevered and made it to the end.”

Oehm says the experience really opened her eyes to the amount of training, teamwork and expertise required to serve in a war zone.   “I am so fortunate to have been able to participate.  It reminded me that, while I’m behind my desk and Excel spreadsheets, these military members continuously train to defend our country.” 

“I am so incredibly proud to have experienced such a day, and to work with amazing Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and others who support our outstanding military.  I am very thankful to Colonel Davis for this opportunity, his incredible leadership, letting me sit in the premiere seat on the helicopter, heating my MRE, and, most importantly, reminding me of what military members do every day to support this great Nation.”
# C_2016048EN.01008701.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/87

---

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Aer Lingus v Commission

(Case T-101/13) (1)

1

(2016/C 048/96)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VALENTINA ALEXANDROVNA ONOUFRIENKO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 71887

Agency No. A074

- 809

- 017

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020 * *

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Valentina Alexandrovna Onoufrienko, a native of the U.S.S.R. and citizen of

Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 71887

motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Onoufrienko’s motion to

reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion nearly 16 years after her final order

of deportation and failed to show she qualifies for any exception to the filing

deadline

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

- (3).

Onoufrienko’s contenti on that the agency erred in denying sua sponte

reopening for failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances does not raise a

legal or constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla , 840 F.3d at 588

( “[T] his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte

reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions

for legal or constitutional error

. ” ).

Onoufrienko’s contention that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence in

deciding her motion is not supported by the record. The BIA provided sufficient

reasoning and detail in its decision denying the motion to reopen , indicating that it

reviewed the entire record

. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.

2010) (the agency do es not have to write an exegesis on every contention) ;

Fernandez v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (alien must overcome

presumption that BIA did review all evidence where the BIA plainly stated it

reviewed the record)

. The BIA was not require d to address whether she is prima3 18

- 71887

facie eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(a) ( “ The Board has

discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a

prima facie case for relief .”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### Min Kyu Jun, Plaintiff, and Hyo Eun Kwak, Appellant, v Rizwan Azam et al., Respondents.

[60 NYS3d 837]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Hyo Eun Kwak appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), entered April 25, 2016, which, upon an order of the same court entered December 18, 2015, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by her on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by her.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Hyo Eun Kwak is denied, the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Hyo Eun Kwak is reinstated, and the order is modified accordingly.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Hyo Eun Kwak (hereinafter the appellant) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the appellant’s spine did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

In opposition, however, the appellant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellant.

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6635.

#### Troy Brown, Petitioner v. E. K. McDaniel, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1037, 131 S. Ct. 577,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8675.

178 L. Ed. 2d 428,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#  DSCR celebrates Hispanic American Heritage Month with energetic program

/ Published Oct. 1, 2015
RICHMOND, Va, 
**
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17172]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group Subcommittee D--Clinical Studies.
    Date: August 2-5, 1998.
    Time: 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn--Silver Spring, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.
    Contact Person: Martin H. Goldrosen, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, 
6130 Executive Boulevard, Rm. 635F, Rockville, MD 20852-7405, (301) 
496-7930.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 23, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-17172 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### In the Matter of Jessica C. Graham, Appellant, v Charles T. Rawley, Respondent. In the Matter of Charles T. Rawley, Respondent, v Jessica Graham, Appellant.

(Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3.)

(Appeal No. 4.)

[48 NYS3d 783]

Appeals by the mother from three orders of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alison M. Hamanjian, Ct. Atty. Ref.), all dated February 9, 2016, and an order of the same court (Karen B. Wolff, J.), dated February 24, 2016. The orders dated February 9, 2016, dismissed the mother’s family offense petition and related motions, without prejudice. The order dated February 24, 2016, denied the mother’s motion to vacate a prior custody order.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In March 2015, the Family Court, Richmond County, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the father, who resided in the State of New Jersey. The father and the child had been residing in New Jersey since November 2013. The mother subsequently initiated a separate child custody proceeding in New Jersey. In May 2015, the New Jersey Superior Court determined that New Jersey was the state of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, and ordered that the child remain in the custody of the father. Thereafter, in December 2015, the mother filed a family offense petition against the father in the Family Court, Richmond County, and moved for relief related to that petition. Two months later, the mother filed a motion in the same court to vacate the father’s order of custody. The Family Court dismissed the mother’s family offense petition and related motions without prejudice, and denied her motion to vacate the order of custody. The mother appeals.

The Family Court properly dismissed, for failure to state a *1019cause of action, the mother’s family offense petition without a hearing. Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petition was conclusory, devoid of specificity, and failed to allege conduct that would constitute a family offense *(see Matter of Marino v*Marino, 110 AD3d 887, 888 [2013]; *Matter of Price v Jenkins,*92 AD3d 787, 787 [2012]; *Matter of Vasciannio v Nedrick,*305 AD2d 420, 421 [2003]).

Further, contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court properly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to vacate the March 2015 order of custody because at the time she moved for this relief, there was a proceeding relating to custody and visitation pending in New Jersey *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 76-e). Accordingly, the mother’s motion was properly denied.

Rivera, J.R, Sgroi, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6487.

#### Allister Durrante, Petitioner v. John Karestes, et al.

562 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 532,

178 L. Ed. 2d 392,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8641.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2256 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2256

To exclude from Federal income taxation amounts received in settlement 
of refund claims for State or local income taxes on Federal retirement 
 benefits which were not subject to State or local income taxation on 
         the same basis as State or local retirement benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 30 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

   Mr. Robb introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exclude from Federal income taxation amounts received in settlement 
of refund claims for State or local income taxes on Federal retirement 
 benefits which were not subject to State or local income taxation on 
         the same basis as State or local retirement benefits.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR REFUNDS OF STATE OR LOCAL INCOME TAXES 
              ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE IMPROPER TAXATION OF FEDERAL 
              RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

    (a) General Rule.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986, gross income shall not include any amount (including interest) 
received after December 31, 1994, from a State in settlement of a claim 
for a refund of State income taxes paid to such State which are 
attributable to the taxation of any protected retirement benefit paid 
before January 1, 1990, in a manner inconsistent with the manner 
required under Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury, 489 U.S. 
803 (1989).
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection (a):
            (1) Protected retirement benefit.--The term ``protected 
        retirement benefit'' means any retirement benefit of an officer 
        or employee referred to in section 111 of title 4, United 
        States Code.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' includes any political 
        subdivision of a State and the District of Columbia.
                                 <all>
```
Detailed Statistics - American FactFinder

http://factfinder.census.gov/

... y&-ds_name=EC0762SSSZ7&-NAICS2007=621210&-ib_type=NAICS2007&-industrySel=621210&-geo_id=&-_industry=621210&-_lang=en&-fds_name= EC0700A1 [4/25/2011 10:10:50 AM] 

## Detailed Statistics
You are here: Main Data Sets Select an Economic Data Set Results

This is a filtered view of the selected data set. Use the options on the Filter Rows menu to modify filters, reset filters , or view current filters



### rows 1-5 of 5

2007 Economic Census Release Date: 12/17/2010 Sector 62: EC0762SSSZ7: Health Care and Social Assistance: Subject Series - Estab & Firm Size: Legal Form of Organization for the United States: 2007 Includes only establishments of firms with payroll. Data based on the 2007 Economic Census. For method of assignment to categories shown and for information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology

.

2007 NAICS code Meaning of 2007 NAICS code Meaning of Type of operation or tax status code Meaning of Legal form of organization code Footnote identifier Number of establishments Receipts/Revenue ($1,000) Annual payroll ($1,000) First-quarter payroll ($1,000) Number of paid employees for pay period including March 12
621210 Offices of dentists Establishments subject to federal income tax All establishments 127,057 93,930,384 34,324,956 7,759,265 825,447

621210 Offices of dentists Establishments subject to federal income tax Corporations 76,519 63,331,820 26,745,171 5,945,876 555,048

621210 Offices of dentists Establishments subject to federal income tax Individual proprietorships 43,913 23,217,033 5,648,479 1,360,036 211,642

621210 Offices of dentists Establishments subject to federal income tax Partnerships 6,586 7,360,807 1,926,153 452,117 58,591

621210 Offices of dentists Establishments subject to federal income tax Other legal forms of organization 39 20,724 5,153 1,236 166

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census
Note: The data in this file are based on the 2007 Economic Census. To maintain confidentiality, the Census Bureau suppresses data to protect the identity of any business or individual. The census results in this file contain nonsampling error. Data users who create their own estimates using data from this file should cite the Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. For the full technical documentation, see Survey Methodology link in above headnote.



### rows 1-5 of 5
Created: April 25, 2011 Main Search Feedback FAQs Glossary Site Map Help

2007 NAICS code Meaning of 2007 NAICS code Meaning of Type of operation or tax status code Meaning of Legal form of organization code Footnote identifier Number of establishments Receipts/Revenue ($1,000) Annual payroll ($1,000) First-quarter payroll ($1,000) Number of paid employees for pay period including March 12
No. D-2552.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Paul Stephen Shemin.

562 U.S. 815, 131 S. Ct. 407,

178 L. Ed. 2d 272,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7513.

October 4, 2010.

Paul Stephen Shemin, of Elmsford, New York, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.