alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gary Michael WEDDING, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; et al., Respondents.

No. 02-73839.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 3, 2004.

Decided May 3, 2004.

Warren R. Brown, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Naomi Tsuda, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Joyce L. Redos, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Before: NOONAN, KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WHITE,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Jeffrey S. White, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

*528MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Gary Wedding (“Wedding”) challenges the Emergency Order affirmed by the National Transportation Board (“Board”) revoking his Airmans’ Certificates No. 2234821 and No. 2386149.

The Board owes a high level of deference to a credibility determination made by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). *See Administrator v. Taylor,*NTSB Order No. EA-4509 (1996) (“As we have stated repeatedly ... the law judge sees and hears the witnesses, and he is in the best position to evaluate their credibility. Absent some compelling reason that persuades us that a law judge’s credibility determination is inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of the evidence, we will not disturb his findings.”); *Administrator v. Rivera and Helivan Helicopters Inc.,*NTSB Order No. EA-4419 (1996) (“Respondents’ argument ... amounts to no more than an indirect challenge to explicit credibility determinations that have not been shown to be deficient in any way, much less arbitrary, inherently incredible, or clearly erroneous, which is the applicable standard.”); *Administrator v. Stewart,*NTSB Order No. EA-4387 (1995) (Board refused to second-guess the credibility judgment of the law judge unless shown to be “arbitrary or clearly erroneous”); *Administrator v. Blossom,*7 NTSB 76 (1990) (The Board gives deference to the law judge’s credibility determination unless “found to be inherently incredible or inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of the evidence”).

The Board did not apply this deferential standard of review to the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination regarding Inspector Lutz. To reverse the ALJ’s determination, the Board would have to find that the “great weight of the evidence” established that Wedding, not Lutz, falsified the Form 337. It is not possible from this record to say that the great weight of the evidence points to either man, as it is at best inconclusive. Because the Board abused its discretion in overturning the ALJ’s credibility finding, we grant the petition for review, reverse the Board’s decision, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.

**

 This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31.1I, Richard L. Federico, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and wehave: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: February 15, 2008 /s/ RICHARD L. FEDERICO   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer            
71
# Q&A with FDA

"Q&A with FDA" provides engaging conversation and discussion about the latest regulatory topics. In this podcast series, FDA’s Division of Drug Information will answer some of the most commonly asked questions received by FDA.

- FDA’s Regulation of Dietary Supplements with Dr. Cara Welch Listen to our latest podcast series, Q&amp;A with FDA - FDA’s Regulation of Dietary Supplements featuring Dr. Cara Welch.
- A Step Forward in the Treatment of Opioid and Alcohol Dependence with Dr. Iilun Murphy and Dr. Marta Sokolowska Listen to our latest podcast series, Q&amp;A with FDA, on A Step Forward in the Treatment of Opioid and Alcohol Dependence featuring Dr. Iilun Murphy and Dr. Marta Sokolowska.
- Navigating the World of Online Pharmacies with CDR Lysette Deshields Navigating the World of Online Pharmacies with CDR Lysette Deshields
- CURE ID, A Tool for Clinicians to Report New Uses of Existing Drugs with Heather Stone and Dr. Marco Schito Listen to our latest podcast series, Q&amp;A with FDA
- FDA takes steps to decrease barriers for overdose reversal agents with Dr. Marta Sokolowska FDA takes steps to decrease barriers for overdose reversal agents with Dr. Marta Sokolowska
- Drug Shortages with CDR Emily Thakur In this podcast series, we answer some of the most frequently asked questions we’ve received from the public.
- Generics-at-a-Glance with Dr. Sarah Ibrahim Generics-at-a-Glance with Dr. Sarah Ibrahim
- Expanded Access with Dr. Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay Expanded Access with Dr. Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay
- MedWatch, Your Report Can Make a Difference MedWatch, Your Report Can Make a Difference
- FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework with Dr. Marta Sokolowska FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework with Dr. Marta Sokolowska
- Clinical Trial Basics Shedding some light on clinical trials with Dr. Bob Temple
- Conversation on Paxlovid In today’s episode, we’ll be discussing Paxlovid, which is now widely available in community pharmacies.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR the STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-10, Appellant, v. Frederick G. VERRAN a/k/a Frederick Verran, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2091

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 6, 2019]

Sarah T. Weitz of Weitz & Schwartz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Gary M. Murphree of AM Law LLC, Miami, and Bruce R. Jacobs of Wedderburn & Jacobs, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Conner, JJ., concur.
Case 3:05-cv-02409-P Document 1 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02409-P Document 1 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02409-P Document 1 Filed 12/02/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3
Christopher Craig WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2875

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 16, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Joseph E. ABDO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Khalil ABDO, Individually and as a Shareholder of Social Media, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1773

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
B.C. v. M.A., P.H.B., T.C., and C.C.

2170304

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 5, 2018

Transferred to DeKalb Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala.R.Juv.P.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE JUSTE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION MARTINSBURG

RESIDENT AGENCY; FEDERAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

PITTSBURGH BRANCH; JAMES

COMEY; LORETTA E. LYNCH;

ASHTON CARTER; JAMES

COLLINS; BARACK OBAMA;

AGENT MARTINEZ, 

Defendants.

/

No. C 16-7399 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner in the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. He filed this

civil action against the former President of the United States, current and former federal law

enforcement officials, and two offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He alleges that

they violated his civil rights while pursuing and prosecuting criminal charges against him in

West Virginia and Washington, D.C.. 

Venue generally is proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all

defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the

subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal

jurisdiction, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. §
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1391(b). This district is the wrong venue because no defendant resides or is located in this

district or this state, none of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or any property that

is the subject of this action is situated in this district, and this action may be brought in one of

the districts where the alleged violation of his civil rights took place.

Where, as here, a case is filed in the wrong venue, the district court has the discretion

either to dismiss the case or transfer it to the proper federal court "in the interest of justice." See

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). As the allegations in the complaint are not comprehensible and do not

appear to form the basis of cognizable civil rights claims against the federal government or its

officials, in the interests of justice, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in a

federal judicial district with venue of the claims under Section 1391. 

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4 , 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul Kevin DYKES, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-722

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 14641 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:13

- cv - 00068

- BAE

- GRS

BLOCKER FARMS OF FLORIDA, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus BUURMA PROPERTIES, LLC, Defe ndant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ (June 13, 2016)

Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 1 of 32 Blocker Farms of Florida, Inc . appeals the district court’s grant of Buurma Properties, LLC’s motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense
of res judicata. Whether res judicata bars a claim is a question of law that we review de novo . 1 Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 1 93 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999) . In Georgia, “ [t] hree prerequisites must be satisf ied before res judicata applies

— (1) identity of the cause of action, (2) identity of the parties or their privies, and (3) previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. ” Waldroup v. Greene Cty. Hosp. Auth. , 463 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ga. 1995); see also O.C.G.A. § 9

- 12

- 40. For the third prong of this test to be met, the judgment must be final. See O.C.G.A. § 9

- 12

- 40 (“ A judgment of a court of competen t jurisdiction shall be conclusive

. . . until the judgment is reversed or set aside. ”); Mitchell v. Mitchell , 25 S.E. 385, 386 ( Ga. 1896) ( “It is only a final judgment upon the merits which prevents further contest upon the same issue

. . . .”). After t he district court issued its order concluding that Blocker Farms’ s claim was barred based on res judicata because the parties had previously litigated the issue in the Superior Court of Tattnell County, the Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated the s uperio r c ourt’s judgment and remanded the case to the superior court

.

1 When giving a state

- court judgment preclusive effect, we apply the res judicata law of the state whose court rendered the judgment. Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006).

Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 2 of 33 Thus, there has not been a previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. See O.C.G.A. § 9

- 12

- 40. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s opinion and remand for further proceedings. 2
VACATED AND REMANDED.

2 We note that the district court has the discretion to stay the proceedings pending the parallel state litigation under the abstention doctrine set out in Colorado River Water Con servation Dist. v. United States , 424 U.S. 800 (1976)

. Moorer v. Demopolis Waterworks & Sewer Bd. , 374 F.3d 994, 998 (11th Cir. 2004). We express no opinion as to whether now the district court should exercise its discretion.

Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 3 of 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8323-8324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01786]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request; Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Information 
Collection Request

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this 
notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before February 27, 2025 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submissions may be 
obtained from Melody Braswell by emailing [email protected], calling 
(202) 622-1035, or viewing the entire information collection request at 
www.reginfo.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    Title: IRS Customer Satisfaction Surveys.
    OMB Number: 1545-2250.
    Abstract: Surveys conducted under this clearance are used by the 
Internal Revenue Service to determine levels of customer satisfaction 
as well as determining issues that contribute to customer burden. This 
information will be used to make quality improvements to products and 
services. Collecting, analyzing, and using customer opinion data is a 
vital component of IRS's Balanced Measures Approach, as mandated by 
Internal Revenue Service Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 and 
Executive Order 12862.
    Current Actions: This is a renewal request. There are currently no 
changes planned. Any updates will be included with the submission 
package. It is estimated that 60,000 burden hours will be used over the 
course of the next three years.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses, and other 
for-profit organizations.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 118,000.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 7 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 13,913.

[[Page 8324]]

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Melody Braswell,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2025-01786 Filed 1-27-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1






Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Sherry McKinzey, CFO of Delta Seaboard International, Inc., a Texas corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010. 
 
 The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of Delta Seaboard International, Inc. and results of its operations.




Date:  November 15, 2010


Sherry McKinzey


CFO


/s/ Sherry McKinzey
EXHIBIT 3 TO HUAWEI’S MOTION TO SEAL 

(JX-097) 

PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 10
Provisionally Highly Confidential

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 10
Provisionally Highly Confidential

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 10
Provisionally Highly Confidential

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 4 of 10
Provisionally Highly Confidential

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 5 of 10
Provisionally Highly Confidential

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 6 of 10
Provisionally Highly Confidential

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 7 of 10
Provisionally Highly Confidential

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 8 of 10
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 9 of 10
Provisionally Highly Confidential

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1228-2 Filed 01/10/19 Page 10 of 10
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Novelis Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.         /s/Geoffrey P. Batt   Geoffrey P. Batt   Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)   Date: May15, 2006     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andis not being filed as part of this report.
STATE of Louisiana v. Dnerius ANTOINE

NO. 2019-KK-0047

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

*580Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.