alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NEW BRITAIN HARDWARE MANUF’G CO., Respondent, v. BUFFALO WHEEL CO.. Appellant.

(Superior Court of Buffalo,

General Term.

December 23, 1895.)

Action by the New Britain Hardware Manufacturing Company against the Buffalo Wheel Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs. TITUS, C. J., did not sit in this case.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

District of Oregon

OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL

ASSOCIATION, an Oregon non profit corporation,

15-1932

GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, an

Ohio for-profit corporation

Great American Insurance Company

c/o CT Corporation System

388 State Street, Suite 420

Salem, OR 97301

Michael E. Farnell, OSB #922996

Parsons Farnell & Grein, LLP

1030 SW Morrison Street

Portland, OR 97205

Tel: (503) 222-1812

-CL 10/13/2015 By: s/J Montgomery, Deputy Clerk

Case 1:15-cv-01932-CL Document 5 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

15-1932

0.00

Case 1:15-cv-01932-CL Document 5 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 48983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18895]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 
Binational Panel Review: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision

AGENCY: United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision in the matter of Ammonium 
Sulphate from the United States of America. (Secretariat File Number: 
MEX-USA-2015-1904-01).

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

SUMMARY: On July 7, 2021, a NAFTA Binational Panel issued its Decision 
in the matter of Ammonium Sulphate from the United States of America 
(Determination on Remand). The Binational Panel remanded the Secretaria 
de Economia's (Economia) second Determination on Remand and ordered 
Economia to issue a redetermination within 90 days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vidya Desai, Acting United States 
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Article 1904 of Chapter 19 of NAFTA provides 
a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations 
issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel 
Review, a Binational Panel is composed to provide judicial review of 
the trade remedy determination being challenged and then issue a 
binding Panel Decision. The NAFTA Binational Panel Decision is 
available publicly at https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/report-rapport-reporte.aspx?lang=eng. The NAFTA Panel Decision is being 
announced pursuant to Rule 70 of the NAFTA Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews. For the complete Rules, please 
see https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/agreement-accord-acuerdo/nafta-alena-tlcan/rules-regles-reglas/article-article-articulo_1904.aspx?lang=eng.

    Dated: August 27, 2021.
Vidya Desai,
Acting U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2021-18895 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6372

JOHN G. WESTINE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, FMC Butner,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02014-FL)

Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: August 16, 2019

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John G. Westine, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John G. Westine appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for release 

pending the court’s consideration of Westine’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. In his 

motion, Westine alleged that prison officials were refusing him necessary treatment for a 

terminal illness. On June 5, 2019, the district court issued an order offering Westine the 

opportunity to convert his pending § 2241 action into a Bivens* civil rights action in order 

to challenge the conditions of his confinement. Westine consented and, on June 24, 

2019, the court dismissed Westine’s § 2241 petition without prejudice and 

recharacterized it as a prisoner civil rights case under Bivens. Upon review, we conclude 

that the instant appeal is moot.

“The mootness doctrine is a limitation on federal judicial power grounded in the 

‘case-or-controversy’ requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.” United States 

v. Springer, 715 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2013); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. 

“Mootness is a jurisdictional question and thus may be raised sua sponte by a federal 

court at any stage of proceedings.” Springer, 715 F.3d at 540. We lose jurisdiction over 

any portion of an appeal that becomes moot. Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 285-86 

(4th Cir. 2007). “If an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it 

impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief . . . to a prevailing party, the appeal 

must be dismissed . . . .” Id. at 286 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). 

 * Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971).
3

“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally 

cognizable interest in the [outcome].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the district court has ruled on Westine’s § 2241 petition, his request for 

release or bail pending the district court’s decision is moot. Accordingly, we deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal. Our decision, of course, does not 

impact Westine’s pending appeal regarding the merits of his § 2241 petition. 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.

DISMISSED
#### MISKA, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County,

Additional General Term.

December 16, 1895.)

Action by Howarth Miska against Angus H. Smith. John Delahunty, for appellant. Kantrowitz & Esberg, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001058560
<NAME> EVEREST HEALTHCARE SERVICES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          3,381
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  64,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (11,119)
<INVENTORY>                                     3,542
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               65,809
<PP&E>                                         57,493
<DEPRECIATION>                               (25,828)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                196,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31,198
<BONDS>                                       100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           13
<OTHER-SE>                                     41,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  196,273
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              184,918
<CGS>                                         196,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 196,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (23,183)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    6,827
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                         615
<NET-INCOME>                                 (16,971)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1737

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a uniform application

of the confidentiality privilege to taxpayer communications with federally

authorized practitioners.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 10, 1998

Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. KERREY, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. GRASSLEY, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. LOTT, Mr. CRAIG, Mr.

COVERDELL, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr.

BOND, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. DEWINE, and Mr. ABRAHAM)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

a uniform application of the confidentiality privilege to

taxpayer communications with federally authorized practitioners.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Taxpayer Confidential5 ity Act of 1998’’.
2

•S 1737 IS

1 SEC. 2. UNIFORM APPLICATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY

2 PRIVILEGE TO TAXPAYER COMMUNICATIONS

3 WITH FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED PRACTITION4 ERS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 77 of the Internal Reve6 nue Code of 1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions)

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

8 ‘‘SEC. 7525. UNIFORM APPLICATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY

9 PRIVILEGE TO TAXPAYER COMMUNICATIONS

10 WITH FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED PRACTITION11 ERS.

12 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—With respect to tax advice,

13 the same common law protections of confidentiality which

14 apply to a communication between a taxpayer and an at15 torney shall also apply to a communication between a tax16 payer and any federally authorized tax practitioner if the

17 communication would be considered a privileged commu18 nication if it were between a taxpayer and an attorney.

19 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—Subsection (a) may only be as20 serted in—

21 ‘‘(1) noncriminal tax matters before the Inter22 nal Revenue Service, and

23 ‘‘(2) noncriminal proceedings in Federal courts

24 with respect to such matters.

25 ‘‘(c) FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED TAX PRACTI26 TIONER.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘federally
3

•S 1737 IS

1 authorized tax practitioner’ means any individual who is

2 authorized under Federal law to practice before the Inter3 nal Revenue Service if such practice is subject to Federal

4 regulation under section 330 of title 31, United States

5 Code.’’

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec7 tions for such chapter 77 is amended by adding at the

8 end the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 7525. Uniform application of confidentiality privilege to

taxpayer communications with federally authorized

practitioners.’’

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of

11 this Act.

Æ
# C_2009132EN.01000301.xml

| 11.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 4 June 2009

appointing one UK alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

2009/C 132/03

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Government of the United Kingdom,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

1

| (2) | An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Robert BRIGHT as a member of the Committee of the Regions, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Robert BRIGHT as a member of the Committee of the Regions,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as an alternate member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

Mr Chris HOLLEY, Councillor for City and Council of Swansea, Wales.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 4 June 2009.

For the Council

The President

Martin PECINA

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bedo H. Kalpakian, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20F (2005) of Bronx Ventures Inc.

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.

I, on behalf of the Company, am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.

I, on behalf of the Company, have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Companys auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal controls; and

6.

I, on behalf of the Company, have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:  May 31, 2006

Bedo H. Kalpakian

Bedo H. Kalpakian

Chief Executive Officer and

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
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research People & Locations







Soliam  Velez
                        Pest Management Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Aid
                        Phone: (406) 433-2020
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1054** 

XING GUO CHEN , Petitioner ,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General , Respondent

.

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

Submitted : September 22, 2016 Decided: October 6, 2016

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition d ismissed in part and denied in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Keith S

. Barnett , New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer , Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius , Senior Litigation Counsel, John M. McAdams, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation , U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Respondent

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Xing Guo Chen , a native and citizen of China, 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 and withholding of removal. * Chen first challenges the agenc y’s determination that his asylum application is time

- barred and that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016 ). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Chen has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder , 571 F.3d 353, 358

- 59 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition f or review with respect to the asylum claim. With respect to Chen’s request for withholding of removal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we

* Chen does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.3 deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Chen (B .I.A. Mar. 23, 2015). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s challenge to the agency’s finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application because he did not exhaust this claim before the Board. Massis v. Mukasey , 549 F.3d 631, 638

- 4 0 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. 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 de cisional

process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART