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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         July 29, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 19, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 713 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-114, CP2021-116.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-16100 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      633
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (38)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,149
<PP&E>                                             759
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (473)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,173
<BONDS>                                            695
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                        (210)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,614
<SALES>                                          3,245
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,245
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  41
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     66
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 66
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        66
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        


</TABLE>
#### Juan Alberto VILLA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71094.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*436Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Maurice Goldman, Goldman & Goldman, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.

OIL, David H. Wetmore, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Alberto Villa-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Guti*errez v. Mukasey,*521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Villa-Flores did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where he testified that he accepted voluntary departure instead of appearing before an IJ during the relevant statutory time period. *See id.*at 1117-18 (petitioner’s testimony that he had the opportunity to go before an IJ and chose to depart instead is sufficient to establish presence-breaking voluntary departure).

We do not consider Villa-Flores’ hardship contentions because his failure to establish continuous physical presence is dis-positive. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### RICHARD HAYDEN, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. JOSEPH CURLEY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

October 3, 1960.

*Mr. Jacob R. Friedman*and *Messrs.*Baker, *Garber & Ghazen*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Fdmond J. Dwyer*for the respondents.

Granted.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T JO R G E P E R E Z T O L E N T IN O ; B E A T R IZ ARAU ZA PE RE Z, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 72514 A ge nc yN os . A 075- 725- 871

A 075- 725- 872 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t14, 2013 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , G R A B E R , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J or ge P e r e z T ol e nt i no and B e a tr i z A r auz aP e r e z , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of M exi co, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order de ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs ba s e d on i ne f f e c t i ve 

# FI LED AU G 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 72514 2 a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or abus e of di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof am ot i on t o r e ope n, and r e vi e w de novo que s t i ons o f law . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 92 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e de ny th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e ope n w he r e the yf

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pr e

j udi c e ar i s i ng f

r om the a l l e ge d i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s is tan c e b yth e irf

o rm e rc o u n s e l. Se e id . a t793- 94 ( “ [ P ] r e j udi c e r e s ul t s w he n the p e r f o rm an c e o f

c o u n s e l w a s s o in a d e qu a te th a t it m ayhave a f f e c t e d the out c om e of the proceedi ng s. ” ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . I tf ol l ow s tha tpe t i t i one r s ’ due pr oc e s s c l a i m , w hi c h r e s t s e nt i r e l yon the f a ilu r e to r e o p e n , f

a ils . Se e L ata v . I

N S, 204 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 2000) (r equi ri ng error andsubst ant i alprej ud i ce t o p re vai lon a du e proces s c l ai m ). I n l i ghtof

thi s di s pos i t i on, w e do notr e a c h pe t i t i one r s ’ r e m a i ni ng c o n te n tio n s . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### Nina Yunayeva, Appellant, v Kings Bay Housing Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 591]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered February 4, 2011, which denied the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated *453February 23, 2010, denying petitioner succession rights to the subject Mitchell-Lama apartment and issuing a certificate of eviction, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination had a rational basis in the record and was in accordance with lawful procedure. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the subject apartment was her primary residence for two years immediately before her husband permanently vacated the apartment, and that she was listed on the income affidavits for those two years (28 RCNY 3-02 [p] [3]; *Matter of Girigorie v New York City Dept. of Hous. Presero. & Deo.,*75 AD3d 430 [2010]). Petitioner’s argument that she was denied due process and a meaningful opportunity to participate in the administrative hearing because she was not provided with an interpreter is not properly before us, as she never requested an interpreter at the administrative level *(see Matter of Peckham v Calogero,*12 NY3d 424, 430 [2009]). In any event, the hearing transcript shows that, despite the lack of an interpreter, petitioner understood and answered the questions asked of her by HPD’s counsel. Moreover, petitioner’s due process claim must fail, as she lacks a protected property interest *(see Matter of Cadman Plaza N. v New York City Dept. of Hous. Presero. & Deo.,*290 AD2d 344 [2002]). Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Tom, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 07

- 00334

- CV

BOBBY WAYNE O'NEAL

, Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No

. 2

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007

- 1772

- CV2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appel lant has filed a “ Motion to Dismiss Appeal ,” stating that he no longer

wishes to pursue this appeal

. Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from

seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entit led. The motion to dismiss is grante d,

and the appeal is dismissed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

REX D. DAVIS

JusticeO'Neal v. Texas Department of Public Safe ty Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna , and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 4, 2009

[CV06 ]
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17
Case: 1:02-cv-09183 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/18/02 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18
# Official Journal L 68/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.068.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 68 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5415 March 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.068.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 68

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5415 March 2011

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | BUDGETS |
| | | European Parliament |
| | | 2011/125/EU, Euratom |
| | * | Definitive adoption of the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2011 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

BUDGETS

European Parliament

2011/125/EU, Euratom

*

Definitive adoption of the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2011

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euros unless otherwise indicated.Any revenue provided for in Article 18(1) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | BUDGETS |
| | | European Parliament |
| | * | | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

BUDGETS

European Parliament

*

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euros unless otherwise indicated.Any revenue provided for in Article 18(1) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Oluwatoyin Osunfunmipe ADEKANMBI, a/k/a Oluwatoyin Osunfunmipe Adesina, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1992.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 19, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Paul S. Allen, Paul Shearman Allen and Associates, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Oluwatoyin Osunfunmipe Adekanmbi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) upholding the immigration judge’s denial of her motion for a continuance. We have reviewed the record and Adekanmbi’s claims and find no abuse of discretion. *See Lendo v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.2007). We therefore uphold the denial of Ade-kanmbi’s motion for the reasons stated by the Board, *see In re Adekanmbi*(B.I.A. July 30, 2010), and deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, 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 establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.           
|                       |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.,              
|                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 12.1**Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**                       **Fiscal Years Ended**   **December 28, 2003**  **January 2, 2005**  **January 1, 2006**  **December 31, 2006**  **December 30, 2007**   *(In thousands, except ratios)* Computation of earnings:                    Earnings before provision for income taxes $241,881  $423,200  $613,307  $430,708  $398,416 Fixed charges excluding capitalized interest  8,565   9,725   1,263   11,934   18,708 Distributed earnings from 50%-or-less-ownedaffiliate  (148)  (569)  2,764   5,782   (5,692)                Adjusted earnings $250,298  $432,356  $617,334  $448,424  $411,432                                      Computation of fixed charges:                    Interest expense $7,640  $8,526  $17  $9,506  $16,339 Interest portion of operating lease expense  925   1,199   1,246   2,428   2,369                 Fixed charges $8,565  $9,725  $1,263  $11,934  $18,708                                      Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (1)  29.2x   44.4x   488.8x   37.6x   22.0x  (1) Computed by dividing (i) earnings before taxes adjusted for fixed charges by (ii)fixed charges which include interest expense plus amortization of debt issuance costs, theportion of rent expense under operating leases deemed to be representative of the interestfactor and interest relating to lease guarantees of 50%-or-less-owned affiliate.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350 

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, I, the undersigned Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

/s/Ralph T Finkenbrink 

Ralph T. Finkenbrink 

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 

Dated: June 14, 2011