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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1705

JASWINDER SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 20, 2015 Decided: April 1, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan M. Kaufman, KAUFMAN & KAUFMAN, San Francisco, California, 

for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Nicole N. Murley, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jaswinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s 

denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have 

thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and Singh’s 

contentions on appeal, and conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 

U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Additionally, we have reviewed Singh’s

claim that he was denied due process at his hearing and find 

such claim to be without merit. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 

243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). We accordingly deny the petition for 

review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh

(B.I.A. June 25, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:788
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:789
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:790
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:791
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:792
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:793
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:794
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:795
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:796
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:797
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:798
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:799
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:800
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:801
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:802
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:803
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:804
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:805
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:806
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:807
Case: 1:03-cv-04433 Document #: 95 Filed: 05/28/04 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:808
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of CD&L, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Albert W. Van Ness, Jr., Chief 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:

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

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

Dated: April 3, 2006

                                                    \s\ Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                    Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
     906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section
     1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as
     part of Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure statement.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

                                       76
# C_2019295EN.01004401.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/44

---

Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Mussa v Parliament

(Case T-418/19)

(2019/C 295/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Mussa (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
Order entered March 20, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01306 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 01307 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 01308 - CR GARY LEE CHAPPELL, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F16 - 53354 - N , F16 - 60423 - N & F17 - 76639 - N 

### O RDER Before the Court are appellant’s March 15, 2019 motions for a second extension of time to file his brief in cause nos. 05

- 18

- 01306

- CR and 05

- 18

- 01307

- CR. 1 We GRANT the motions and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before April 15, 2019 . If appellant’s brief is not filed by April 15, 2019, cause nos. 05

- 18

- 01306

- CR and 05

- 18

- 01307

- CR may be abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

1 Appellant has filed his brief in cause no. 05

- 18

- 01308

- CR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM P. WARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 98-2590

THE MEN'S WAREHOUSE,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.

(CA-98-1291-H)

Submitted: February 2, 1999

Decided: April 21, 1999

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William P. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney Gordon Leech, Jennifer

Lilore Huesman, GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & GRAY, L.L.P.,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William P. Ward appeals the district court's order that dismissed

his employment discrimination action with prejudice, purportedly

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). It appears from the context of the

court's order, however, that it likely intended to dismiss Ward's

action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Ward v. Men's Warehouse, Inc., No. CA-98-1291-H (D. Md. Sept. 22, 1998).

Because of the severity of a dismissal with prejudice under Rule

41(b), district courts must balance four factors in determining whether

such dismissals are appropriate:

(1) the degree of personal responsibility of the plaintiff, (2)

the amount of prejudice caused the defendant, (3) the existence of a drawn out history of deliberately proceeding in a

dilatory fashion, and (4) the existence of sanctions less drastic than dismissal.

Doyle v. Murray, 938 F.2d 33, 34 (4th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Although the district court stated in this case that it

dismissed Ward's action for failure to respond to discovery and failure to comply with a court order, the record is silent as to whether the

district court considered the above factors in dismissing Ward's

action with prejudice. Thus, we have no basis to evaluate whether the

district court considered all relevant factors before it acted.

Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal of Ward's action with prejudice. Assuming that the district court intended to exercise its authority

under Rule 41(b), we remand so that it may apply the above four-part

analysis in determining whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. If the court intended to dismiss Ward's action based upon

another rule, we direct that the court clarify its reasoning. We express

no opinion as to whether dismissal with prejudice is appropriate under

any analysis, as the district court is in the best position to make this

determination in the first instance. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. These meetings will primarily take place at NSF's headquarters, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

                    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the                     **Federal Register**                    . NSF intends to publish a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF website:                     *https://www.nsf.gov/​events/​advisory.jsp.*                     This information may also be requested by telephoning, 703/292-8687.                

Dated: August 2, 2021.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021-16694 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. NORTH RIVER SAVINGS BANK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by George Hoffman against the North River Savings Bank. I. B. Louis, for appellant. N. B. Sanborn, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
Exhibit 23.1

                          Independent Auditor's Consent

The Board of Directors
Atlantic Technology Ventures, Inc.:

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-34379, 333-35079, 333-65393, 333-40916, 333-49036 and 333-57550) on
Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-15807 and 333-48531) on Form S-8 of Atlantic Technology
Ventures, Inc. (a development stage company) of our report dated March 22, 2002,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Atlantic Technology Ventures,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, and for the
period from July 13, 1993 (inception) to December 31, 2001, which report appears
in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Atlantic Technology
Ventures, Inc.

         Our report dated March 22, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has
limited liquid resources that raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not
include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

                                                              KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 29, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 85 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 85

   Electing members of the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint 
                 Committee of Congress on the Library.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 1997

 Mr. Thomas submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Electing members of the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint 
                 Committee of Congress on the Library.

    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, 
elected to the following joint committees of Congress, to serve with 
the chairman of the Committee on House Oversight:
    Joint Committee on Printing: Mr. Ney, Ms. Granger, Mr. Hoyer, and 
Mr. Gejdenson.
    Joint Committee of Congress on the Library: Mr. Ney, Mr. Ehlers, 
Ms. Kilpatrick, and Mr. Gejdenson.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 12.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Dr. Werner Brandt, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of SAP AG;  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 statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith 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 company as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the company and have: 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 thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: April 2, 2007   /s/ WERNER BRANDT    Name:  Dr. Werner Brandt    Title:  Chief Financial Officer
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Crop Improvement and Protection Research: Salinas, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Salinas, California Crop Improvement and Protection Research People Eric B. Brennan







Service, Leadership and Participation in Professional Activitiesheadline bar Eric B. Brennan**** **Service, Leadership & Participation in Professional Activities /ARSUserFiles/21904/Photos/leader-icon-vector-11706948 larger.jpg** /ARSUserFiles/21904/Photos/Logo ASHS.pngMember, American Society of Horticultural Science /ARSUserFiles/21904/Photos/Logo ASA.pngMember, American Society of Agronomy Lead a Hands-on DIY Video Making Workshop for Scientists, 2022, 2023.
Leader of the Organic Management Systems Community, American Society of Agronomy, 2017
Vice Leader of the Organic Management Systems Community, American Society of Agronomy, 2016
Co-organized a symposium on Sustainability Challenges of Organic Agriculture  Return to Eric Brennan's Home Page


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov