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

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Review)]

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on refined brown aluminum oxide from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on October 1, 2008 (73 FR 57149) and determined on January 5, 2009 that it would conduct an expedited review (74 FR 1706, January 13, 2009).

                    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on March 2, 2009. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4063 (March 2009), entitled                     *Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Review).*

Issued: March 2, 2009.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in section 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. E9-4790 Filed 3-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUNXIAO ZHANG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70267 

Agency No. A089-976-758 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 20, 2020**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

Runxiao Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

* 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

JUL 20 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70267 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse 

credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 

1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies in Zhang’s testimony regarding her husband’s 

employment. Id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality 

of the circumstances); Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-40 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(substantial evidence review is a highly deferential standard that requires 

upholding the adverse credibility finding so long as even one basis is supported by 

substantial evidence). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. 

See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to 

accept explanations for inconsistencies). Further, she failed to produce reliable 

corroborating evidence of the DVD that was central to her claim. In the absence of 

credible testimony, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.1 See 

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Zhang’s CAT 

claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Zhang 

1

 Additionally, the two witnesses, who could not remember the name of the church 

they allegedly attended with Zhang, failed to corroborate and bolster Zhang’s 

claims for relief. 
3 15-70267 

does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that 

it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or 

acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 

1048-49.

PETITION DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5026 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5026

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To designate the Investigations Building of the Food and Drug 
  Administration located at 466 Fernandez Juncos Avenue in San Juan, 
             Puerto Rico, as the ``Andres Toro Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Investigations Building of the Food and Drug Administration 
located at 466 Fernandez Juncos Avenue in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Andres Toro Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Andres Toro 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5026

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To designate the Investigations Building of the Food and Drug 
  Administration located at 466 Fernandez Juncos Avenue in San Juan, 
             Puerto Rico, as the ``Andres Toro Building''.
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 2106** 

TAFADZWA NHIRA ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

THOMPSON HOSPITALITY; COMPASS GROUP; MAURICE JENOURE; JILL BROWN; DINA ZAIKOUK; DANA MITCHELL; DAN KELLY; ABDELMAJID ZAGHARI ,
Defendants

– Appellees ,

a nd

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; BOWIE STATE; TODD BURGE; NANCY WEDINER; MICHAEL AMOS; ALESSANDRIA MCGWIRE ,
Defendan t s.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv
- 00676

- WMN )

Submitted : February 28, 2017 Decided: March 13, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Tafadzwa Nhira , Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Dowd , LITTLER MENDELSON PC , Washington , D.C., for Appellees2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Tafadzwa Nhira appeals the district court ’ s order granting
summary judgment to D efendants on his whistleblower claim under

the Sarbanes

- Oxley Act , 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (2012) , and his claims
of retaliation, failure to promote, discriminatory discharge,
and discriminatory compensation, in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S .C. §§ 2000e to

2000e

– 17 (2012)

. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. * Nhira v. Thompson Hospitality , No. 1:14

-

cv
- 00676

- WMN (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2016). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* To the extent that Nhira’s informal brief challenges the district court’s dismissal of Morgan State University and Bowie State Universi ty, Nhira did not identify the district court’s dismissal orders in his notice of appeal, and consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 176

- 77 (4th Cir. 2014) . Furtherm ore, insofar as Nhira requests remand because the district court decided Defendants’ motion for summary judgment before Defendants answered Nhira’s requests for admissions , we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court. See United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. , 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002).
No. 09-8952.

#### Emilio Jesus Nunez, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1052, 130 S. Ct. 2348,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3098,

176 L. Ed. 2d 567,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 338 Fed. Appx. 793.
No. 09-8360.

#### Phillip Dewayne Jones, Petitioner v. M. Pollard, et al.

559 U.S. 994, 130 S. Ct. 1741,

176 L. Ed. 2d 216,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2248.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 328 Fed. Appx. 896.
No. 09-9074.

#### Steven Kent Bloom, Petitioner v. Elizabeth L. Rice, et al.

559 U.S. 1064, 130 S. Ct. 2105,

176 L. Ed. 2d 718,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3123.

April 19, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kansas dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 203 P.2d 1282.
No. 09-904.

#### South West Sand & Gravel, Inc., Petitioner v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District.

559 U.S. 1008, 130 S. Ct. 1937,

176 L. Ed. 2d 367,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2576.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, denied.

Same case below, 221 Ariz. 309, 212 P.3d 1.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The certifications setforth below are hereby submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to, and solely for the purpose of complying with, Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code in connection with the filingon the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of MAIR Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”)for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”).

 

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies that, as of the end of the period covered by the Report:

 

1.               Such Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ PAUL F. FOLEY |   |
|-------------------|--------|

 

Paul F. Foley

President, ChiefExecutive Officer and

acting Chief FinancialOfficer

May 30,2008

 

----
No. 09-9200.

#### Jose Pilar Perez-Lopez, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1024, 130 S. Ct. 1929,

176 L. Ed. 2d 396,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2524.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 358 Fed. Appx. 796.
The HONORABLE PAUL A. MAGNUSON, Chi ef Judge of the United States * District Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4235

___________ Marla J. Norton, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. AMISUB St. Joseph Hospital, * * [PUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 12, 1998 Filed: September 18, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and MAGNUSON, District Judge. *

___________ PER CURIAM. When AMISUB Corporation acquired St. Joseph’s Hospital in Om aha, employee Marla J. Norton signed an Acknowledgment Form in which she agreed to submit al l complaints “that arise out of employment or termination of employment” to bindin g arbitration

. Norton was terminated in August 1994. She filed this action allegin g unlawful sex and age discrimination in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, and state law. The Hospital mo ved to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration. The district court grantedT he HONORABLE LYLE E. STROM, United States District Judge for th e 1 District of Nebraska. -2- the unopposed stay, and the arbitrator held a three-day he aring that resulted in an award in favor of the Hospital. The arbitrator reasoned that Norton “has not carr ied her burden of sho wing that the reasons offered by the Hospital are pretexts for discrimination o r that the Hospital provided false reasons for terminating Ms. Norton.” WhenNorton failed to file a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award within the three months allowed under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 12, the distric t court granted the Hospital’s motion to dismiss her complaint, concluding that b y 1 voluntarily participating in the arbitration Norton “has either consented to arbitration or waived her right to object on the grounds that the arbitration agreement is not valid. She is bound by t he arbitrator’s award by not filing a timely motion to vacate.” Norto n appeals, arguing that the Acknowledgment Form was not a binding agreement t o ar bitrate, the agreement to arbitrate was an unenforceable contract of adhesion, th e waiver of h er statutory rights did not comply with the ADEA’s disclosure and waiting period limitations, and she did not waive her right to a j ury trial by agreeing to arbitrate. Af ter careful consideration of these contentions, we agree with the district court tha t Norton w aived her right to pursue her claims in the lawsuit by failing to oppose th e motion t o stay, participating in the arbitration, and failing to file a timely petition o r motionto vacate the arbitrator’s award. See Comprehensive Acct’g Corp. v. Rudell , 760 F. 2d 138 (7th Cir. 1985); see generally Patterson v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc. , 11 3 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at September 30, 2000 (Unaudited)
and the Consolidated Statement of Income for the three months ended September
30, 2000 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          24,777
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,777
<PP&E>                                          69,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,500)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          253,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,150
<OTHER-SE>                                   (187,988)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,262
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,173)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,173)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
No. 09-974.

#### Anthony Armando Rios, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 1069, 130 S. Ct. 2104,

176 L. Ed. 2d 725,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3312.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
II 

Calendar No. 380 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4911 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2006 

Received 

MARCH 16 (legislative day, MARCH 15), 2006 

Read the first time 

MARCH 27, 2006 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes. 

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


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

HR 4911 PCS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Higher Education Ex3 tension Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act 

6 of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘March 31, 2006’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘June 30, 2006’’. 

9 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

10 Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Ex11 tension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be con12 strued to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of ap13 propriations for, or the durations of, programs contained 

14 in the amendments made by the Higher Education Rec15 onciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–171) to the pro16 visions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Tax17 payer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 14, 

2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS

jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
Calendar No. 380 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4911 

AN ACT 

To temporarily extend the programs under the 

purposes. Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other 

MARCH 27, 2006 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
No. 09-8497.

#### Jorge Galindo, Petitioner v. Nebraska.

559 U.S. 1010, 130 S. Ct. 1887,

176 L. Ed. 2d 372,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2711.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 278 Neb. 599, 774 N.W.2d 190.
No. 11-7918.

#### Marshall Monroe, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1183, 132 S. Ct. 1155,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1026,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1045.

January 23, 2012.

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

Same case below, 445 Fed. Appx. 644.
# C_2016417EN.01000802.xml

| 11.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 417/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 417/8

---

EUROPEAN POLICE COLLEGE (CEPOL)

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2015

(2016/C 417/29)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.cepol.europa.eu/who-we-are/key-documents/final-accounts

---
39832 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 98–48]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense

Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104–

164 dated 21 July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703)

604–6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 98–48,

with attached transmittal and policy

justification.

Dated: July 20, 1998.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices 39833
39834 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices 39835

[FR Doc. 98–19790 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–C
No. 09-8378.

#### James H. Shortz, Petitioner v. City of Tuskegee, Alabama, et al.

559 U.S. 994, 130 S. Ct. 1742,

176 L. Ed. 2d 217,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2287.

March 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 355.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Timothy Whelan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
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) or
15(d) 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.



| | By: /s/ Timothy Whelan
Timothy Whelan
Chief Financial Officer
July 10, 2003
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledeging 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 IPC Acquisition
Corp. and will be retained by IPC Acquisition Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 11-7106.

#### Funmi M. Curtis-Joseph, Petitioner v. John W. Richardson, et al.

565 U.S. 1123, 132 S. Ct. 1027,

181 L. Ed. 2d 757,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 19.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 417 Fed. Appx. 570.