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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2920 

To renew the temporary suspension of duty on Tralopyril. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To renew the temporary suspension of duty on Tralopyril. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRALOPYRIL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.84 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Tralopyril) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

7 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

10 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

11 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.7

Annual Certification

Re: Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2004-HE7 (the "Trust"),
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-HE7, issued pursuant
to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as August 1, 2004 (the
"Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by and among Morgan Stanley ABS
Capital I Inc., as depositor (the "Depositor"), Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"), HomEq Servicing Corporation,
as servicer (the "Servicer"), and NC Capital Corporation, as responsible
party

I, Arthur Q. Lyon, certify to the Depositor and the Trustee, and their
officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that
they will rely upon this certification, that:

A review of the activities of the Servicer during the 2004 calendar year
and the Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
has been made under my supervision, the Servicer has complied with the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects and, to the best
of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has materially fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout
such calendar year.

Date: March 14, 2005

HomEq Servicing Corporation
/s/: Arthur Lyon
Arthur Q. Lyon
President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7400

FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE; DR. TOM 

LINGUISE; DR. ISAIAS TESSEMA, (MD); SYRESH MENON; DR. MELAKU 

AYALEW; DR. DAVID MATHIS; DR. DEREJE TESFAYE; DR. AVA JOUBERT; 

CHRISTY WHITEHAIR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:10-cv-01481-WDQ)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, 

Mary Beth Ewen, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Erin 

O. Millar, Valerie L. Tetro, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny McCoy’s motion for appointment of counsel 

and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

McCoy v. Corr. Med. Serv., No. 1:10-cv-01481-WDQ (D. Md. Sept. 

20, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JUANITA HIGAREDA,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,256

5 FRANCIS THATCHER,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY

8 Pedro Rael, District Judge

9 Juanita Higareda

10 Albuquerque, NM

11 Pro Se Appellee

12 Duran & McDonald LLC

13 John A. Duran 

14 Albuquerque, NM

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 GARCIA, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has been filed,

3 and the time for doing so has expired. 

4 {2} Affirmed.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 

7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 

10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

11 

12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
From: Bailey Leopard 

Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:41 PM 

To: 'Thuy.Cooper@dot.gov'; 'esta.rosenberg@dot.gov' 

Cc: 'Urs, Krishna Raj'; 'Limaye-Davis, Y Viki'; 'Keith.Glatz@dot.gov'; 

'Eugene_Alford@ita.doc.gov' 

Subject: FedEx Application for China Frequencies, DOT-OST-2010-0149 

I have completed polling on the FedEx Express application for twenty China Zone 1 or 2 

frequencies (as amended) in the above-referenced docket, and none of the interested parties 

served with the application have an objection. Therefore, I respectfully request that the 

Department grant the application as soon as possible. 

 

I will file a copy of this e-mail in the above-referenced docket and e-mail a service copy to all 

interested parties. 

 

Best regards, 

 

Bailey Leopard 

Senior Counsel 

FedEx Express 

Memphis, TN 38125 

901.434.6664 TEL 

901.428.8950 CEL 

901.434.8283 FAX 

http://www.fedex.com
**Exhibit 10.9****Annual Incentive Bonus Program****Performance Criteria**  The following two performance criteria will be used in each entity as measurements in AnnualIncentive Bonus Program:**•** Top Line Growth- 50% o Net Interest Income plus Fee Income**•** Cash Flow Growth- 50% o Net Income After Tax, before loan loss provision, after actual net charge offs**Targeted Base Salary Percentage**The targeted base salary percentage for bonus payment at three possible achievement levels(Threshold, Target and Superior) for each employment level within the Company shall be determinedby the FBFS Board, acting upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee. If targetedpercentages for any employment level shall be based on a range, then the percentage for eachparticipating individual within such level shall be determined by the Compensation Committee ormanagement, as appropriate. The targeted base salary percentages for each participating individualshall be promptly communicated to such individual.**Mix of the Payout**       **Corporate** **Entity**FBFS Employees 100% n/aOther Employees 25% 75%**Safeguards**The cash flow percentage is self-funding.
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

(Chief Financial Officer





In connection with the quarterly report of Clacendix, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Patrick E. Delaney, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.









Date:          August 13, 2008

By: /s/ Patrick E. Delaney



Patrick E. Delaney

Chief Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to Clacendix, Inc. and will be retained by Clacendix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 COMC, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
Marc Dell'Immagine, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, that to the best of my knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


/s/ Marc Dell'Immagine
------------------------
Name: Marc Dell'Immagine
Controller and Principal Accounting Officer

May 14, 2003



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

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO COMC, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY COMC, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KYU PYO HAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71029

Agency No. A098-761-436

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Kyu Pyo Han, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of

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

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

OCT 6 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71029

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453

F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo claims of due process

violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the

petition for review.

Although Han contends he has a well-founded fear of persecution, he does

not challenge the agency’s dispositive findings that he is statutorily ineligible for

asylum due to his untimely application and aggravated felony conviction. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Accordingly,

Han’s asylum claim fails. 

Further, although Han contends he established a clear probability of

persecution by loan sharks in South Korea, he does not challenge the agency’s

dispositive finding that he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. See id. 

Accordingly, Han’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, Han’s contention that the IJ and BIA failed to consider all of the

evidence before them is belied by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
---

Exhibit 10.20


JAMES STAFFORDJames Stafford, Inc.Chartered AccountantsSuite 350 – 1111 Melville StreetVancouver, British ColumbiaCanada V6E 3V6Telephone +1 604 669 0711Facsimile +1 604 669 0754www.jamesstafford.ca
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm We consent to the incorporation of our report dated 12 August 2011, except for Note 12, as to which the date is 15 September 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Dynamic Gold Corp. as at 30 June 2011 and 2010 and the related consolidated statements of operations and deficit, cash flows and changes in stockholders’ deficiency for each of the years in the three-year period ended 30 June 2011 on Form 10-K dated 23 September 2011. */s/ James Stafford*Chartered Accountants Vancouver, Canada 
23 September 2011


---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3114-3115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-901]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Open Committee 
Meetings

    According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that meetings of 
the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee will be held on--
    Thursday, February 12, 2009.
    Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    The meetings will start at 10 a.m. and will be held in Room 5A06A, 
U.S. Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 E Street, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed of a 
Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive 
bargaining rights for Federal blue-collar employees, and five 
representatives from Federal agencies. Entitlement to membership on the 
Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347.
    The Committee's primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing 
Rate System and other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing 
rates under subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from 
time to time advise the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
    These scheduled meetings will start in open session with both labor 
and management representatives attending. During the meetings either 
the labor members or the management members

[[Page 3115]]

may caucus separately with the Chair to devise strategy and formulate 
positions. Premature disclosure of the matters discussed in these 
caucuses would unacceptably impair the ability of the Committee to 
reach a consensus on the matters being considered and would disrupt 
substantially the disposition of its business. Therefore, these 
caucuses will be closed to the public because of a determination made 
by the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the 
provisions of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. 92-463) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). These caucuses may, depending on 
the issues involved, constitute a substantial portion of a meeting.
    Annually, the Chair compiles a report of pay issues discussed and 
concluded recommendations. These reports are available to the public, 
upon written request to the Committee.
    The public is invited to submit material in writing to the Chair on 
Federal Wage System pay matters felt to be deserving of the Committee's 
attention. Additional information on these meetings may be obtained by 
contacting the Committee at U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 
Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 5526, 1900 E Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-2838.

    Dated: January 12, 2009.
Charles E. Brooks,
Chairman, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E9-901 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-49-P
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 13, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01233-CV 

AKINO BRUMFIELD, Appellant 

V. 

LANDCARE USA L.L.C. & NAMBO GUADLUAPE, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-11764 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court’s summary 

judgment as the judgment appeared to have been signed outside the trial court’s 

plenary power, making the judgment void. See Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. 

Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam) (appellate courts lack 

jurisdiction to address merits of appeal from void judgment); Pipes v. Hemingway, 

358 S.W.3d 438, 445 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (action taken by trial court 

outside plenary power is void). As reflected in the clerk’s record, the underlying 

cause was initially dismissed for want of prosecution on October 11, 2021. A motion 
 –2– 

to reinstate was timely filed, and the motion was granted on December 6, 2021. See 

TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a3 (providing that motion to reinstate must be filed within thirty 

days of dismissal order). The trial court then signed the appealed summary judgment 

on October 14, 2022. 

Although a timely filed motion to reinstate extends a trial court’s plenary 

power over a case to seventy-five days from the date of judgment, the motion must 

be verified. See id.; McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam). The motion here, however, was unverified, resulting in 

the trial court’s plenary power over the underlying case expiring November 12, 2021 

and the appealed summary judgment being void. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 4, 329b(d); 

Pipes, 358 S.W.3d at 445. 

We informed the parties by letter that when an appeal is taken from a void 

judgment, we have jurisdiction only to vacate the judgment and dismiss the appeal. 

See In re M.K., 514 S.W3d at 369, 390 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.). 

Although we gave the parties an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should 

be retained, more than ten days have passed, and the parties have not done so. 

Accordingly, on the record before us, we vacate the October 2022 summary 

judgment and dismiss the appeal. See id.

 

221233F.P05 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

AKINO BRUMFIELD, Appellant 

No. 05-22-01233-CV V. 

LANDCARE USA L.L.C. & 

NAMBO GUADALUPE, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-11764. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith, 

Justices Molberg and Carlyle 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial 

court’s October 14, 2022 summary judgment and DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellees Landcare USA L.L.C. & Nambo Guadalupe 

recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Akino Brumfield. 

Judgment entered June 13, 2023
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-79271) ofNovaMed,
Inc. of our report dated February 15, 2005, except for the effects of the
restatement of the 2004 financial statements described in Note 2 to the
financial statements included in the Company's annual report of Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2005 (not separately presented herein), for which
the date is April 27, 2006.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago, IllinoisMarch 15,
2007

---
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 9, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00739

- CR

Jose Guadalupe MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 38th Judi cial District Court, Real County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- 1132

- DR

The Honorable Camile G. Dubose , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The trial court has si g ned w ritten findings of fact and conclusions of law, which have been filed in a supplemental clerk’s record. We reinstate the appeal on the docket of this court.

We order appellant may file a supplemental brief addressing his third issue (whether the trial

court err ed in denying his motion to suppress evidence of his oral and written statements) in light

of the trial court’s findings and conclusions. The supplemental brief must be filed by April 29,

2014 and may not exceed 5,000 words. The State may file a respon sive brief, not to exceed 5,000 words, within twenty days after appellant’s supplemental brief is filed.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Ch apa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of April, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottl e Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  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 Medizone International, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@), I, Edwin G. Marshall, Principal Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Edwin G. Marshall Edwin G. Marshall, Principal Executive Officer  Date: December 18, 2006   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 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.
SCWC-17-0000564

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

WILLIAM E. BARRIOS, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000564; 2PC101000589)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant William E. Barrios’

application for writ of certiorari, filed on July 14, 2019, is hereby

rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 20, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000564

20-AUG-2019

08:51 AM