alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# USCIS Changes Filing Location and Documentation Requirements for Certain Affirmative Asylum Applications Using Form I-589

05/31/2023

Effective today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has changed the filing location for certain affirmative asylum applications submitted by mail. We expect this change to help streamline asylum processing and improve adjudication efficiency by digitizing paper filings. You should now mail your Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, to the lockbox that has jurisdiction over your place of residence, instead of to the service center.

See the “Where to File” section of the Form I-589 webpage to learn where to file your application. If filing by mail, you should file at the appropriate lockbox location to ensure timely receipt of your application. However, if you submit Form I-589 to a service center, we will accept that form until we formalize this change through a Federal Register notice.

Applicants who submit a properly filed Form I-589 to a lockbox will receive two notices. The first notice will acknowledge that the lockbox has received and forwarded the Form I-589 to USCIS. After USCIS accepts the application, we will then issue a standard Form I-589 receipt notice. Both notices will include the same receipt date that is used to determine eligibility for employment authorization based on a pending asylum application and for purposes of the one-year filing deadline.

The following categories of affirmative asylum applicants must continue to mail their asylum application directly to the Asylum Vetting Center, following the instructions on the Form I-589 page:
                - Loss of Derivative Status After Asylum Approval but Before Adjustment of Status (Nunc Pro Tunc);
                - Loss of Derivative Status After Initial Filing but Before Final Decision;
                - Simultaneous Filing as a Principal Applicant and a Derivative Applicant;
                - Previously Issued a Final Action by USCIS on a Form I-589; and
                - Previously in Immigration Court Proceedings.

Online filing is also available and encouraged for affirmative asylum applicants who are not in immigration court proceedings and who do not have to submit their application to the Asylum Vetting Center as indicated above.

To avoid processing delays, carefully review the “Where to File” and “Special Instructions” sections of the Form I-589 page before submitting your application.

**Updated Form and Instructions**

We have also published a new edition of Form I-589, dated 03/01/23. Starting July 31, 2023, we will accept only the 03/01/23 edition of the form. Until then, we will continue to accept the 10/12/22 edition of Form I-589.

Effective immediately, when you submit Form I-589, you no longer need to submit a passport-style photo, multiple copies of the form, or multiple copies of the supporting documentation. See the Instructions for Form I-589 (PDF, 143.49 KB) for more information.

05/31/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-03730]

Pursuant to Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on February 17, 2000 on behalf of workers at Timbergon, Redmond, Oregon.

The petitioner requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 6th day of April 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-9520  Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
(78 Hun, 270.)

#### BARNETT v. SCRIBNER et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Reference—Examination of Accounts.

In an action for procuring subscriptions to a publication under a contract which provided that plaintiff should be paid only where the subscriber accepted six volumes of the publication, an examination of accounts is involved, so as to authorize a reference. Brown, P. J., dissenting.

Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.

Action by Samuel M. Barnett against Charles Scribner & Sons. An order of reference was granted, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

George H. Fletcher, for appellant.

Crane & Lockwood, for respondents.

PRATT, J.

This is an appeal from an order of reference made at circuit during the trial, and after the examination of the plaintiff as its witness. It is plain from an examination of the pleadings that, to prove both the complaint and the answer, it will be necessary to examine accounts, if all the matters between the parties are to be examined. I think it plain there is but very little merit in. the claim made by the plaintiff. Strictly speaking, it is a. claim for damages for failure of the defendant to give the *263plaintiff a list of the names of subscribers furnished by plaintiff to defendant, who refused to take the volumes in question. Any damages over six cents, for such a claim, must necessarily be purely speculative. The plaintiff says, by not having the list, he lost the opportunity to go to the delinquent subscribers, and iget them to change their minds and accept the books; but what certainty or proof is vouchsafed that he could effect such change, or what proof can be given upon a trial that one cent of loss can be sustained by failure to secure the lists? The motive or inability of such subscribers, which caused them to refuse to receive the books, are matters entirely beyond the knowledge of the plaintiff, or his power to remedy. The suit is therefore purely uncertain and speculative.

The parties, however, seem to regard this suit as one for a balance due the plaintiff for services under a contract, and the claim for damages for not furnishing a list is mere padding. In this view of the case, a reference was proper. Chambers v. Appleton, 11 Wkly. Dig. 524, 84 N. Y. 649. The plaintiff desires to recover the contract price of all the subscriptions he turned in to the defendant, but the contract was that he was to be paid only for such as accepted six volumes of a set of the work. These are all matters involving the examination of accounts. If, upon the trial, the plaintiff had been taken at his word,—that this was a suit alone for breach of the contract to furnish lists,—the complaint ought to have been dismissed for failure to show wherein he was damaged for breach of contract. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

DYKMAN, J., concurs.

BROWN, P. ,T. Upon the pleadings the case is not referable, and the evidence does not make it so. I dissent.
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 Caneum, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned principal executive officer and principal financial officer
of the Company, hereby certifies 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) 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.


Date:  March 31, 2005

/s/ Sukhbir Singh Mudan
Sukhbir Singh Mudan, President and Treasurer
(Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Amended Annual Report of Infinity  Capital  Group,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A for the period  ending  December 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report") I, Theodore A. Greenberg,  Chief Financial  Officer,  Chief Investment
Officer and Secretary of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC 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 results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: January 29, 2007



Name: Theodore A. Greenberg

/s/Theodore A. Greenberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Secretary


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, James A. Rotherham, C.P.A., Chief Financial Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

|Dated: April 29, 2004                                                                                         |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/JAMES A. ROTHERHAM, C.P.A.James A. Rotherham, C.P.A. Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |  | 

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Kintera, Inc. and will be retained by
Kintera, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
July 28, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

COLLINS, EDMONDS, POGORZELSKI, SCHLATHER & TOWER, PLLC, 

Appellant

NO. 14-15-00544-CV V.

INTERNET MACHINES, LLC, STEVEN C. SEREBOFF, FRANCES P. 

KNUETTEL, II; INTERNET MACHINES MC, LLC AND SOCAL IP LAW 

GROUP, LLP, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on June 3, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 31.2

                            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 Market Central, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2003February 29, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Clifford A. Clark, VP of Finance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(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/ Clifford A. Clark
-----------------------------
Clifford A. Clark
Chief Financial Officer
January 15, 2004


                                       45
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Charter Municipal Mortgage Acceptance
Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Stuart A.  Rothstein,  Chief  Financial  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) 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.



By:   /s/ Stuart A. Rothstein
      ------------------------------
      Stuart A. Rothstein
      Chief Financial Officer
      November 14, 2003
Unassociated Document


    

      December
30, 2009

       

      Silicon Valley Bank

      38 Technology Drive, Suite
150

      Irvine, CA 92618

      


      


      Re:           Registration
Rights

      


      Ladies
and Gentlemen:

      


      This
letter agreement (this “Agreement”) sets
forth certain mutual understandings among Energy and Power Solutions, Inc.
(“EPS”) and
Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) relating to
that certain Warrant to Purchase Stock (the “Warrant”) issued to
SVB in connection with that certain Loan and Security Agreement between EPS and
SVB dated December 30, 2009.  Capitalized terms that are used but not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the
Warrant.

       

      Reference
is made to Section 3.3 of the Warrant, which provides that the Shares (as such
term is defined in the Warrant), and the common stock issuable upon conversion
of the Shares, shall have “piggyback” and Form S-3 registration rights pursuant
to and as set forth in the Company’s Amended and Restated Investors’ Rights
Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2009 (the “IRA”), a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A.  The parties
hereto acknowledge and agree that SVB, upon an exercise of the Warrant,
shall be entitled to the rights as a Holder of Registrable Shares (as such terms
are defined in the IRA) set forth in Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.8(a) of the
IRA (collectively, the “Registration Rights”)
and that the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Shares shall
be deemed Registrable Shares for purposes of such provisions.  As a
condition to the grant of the Registration Rights, SVB agrees to be bound by the
provisions of Sections 2.6, 2.7 2.8(b), 2.9 and 5 of the IRA.  The
parties hereto acknowledge and agree that SVB’s Registration Rights shall
terminate upon the earliest to occur of the date (a) that is seven (7) years
after the closing date of EPS’ Qualified IPO (as such term is defined in the
IRA); (b) on which any Registrable Securities proposed to be sold by a
Holder in a registration pursuant to Section 2.3 or 2.4 may be sold by the
Holders without registration and without regard to any volume limitation under
Rule 144 under the Securities Act or any other rule of similar effect, or
(c) by which all of the Registrable Securities have been sold pursuant to a
registration statement.

       

      If the
foregoing accurately sets forth the agreements that EPS and SVB have reached
with respect to the subject matter hereof, please indicate your agreement to the
terms herein by countersigning in the place indicated below.

       

      [SIGNATURE
PAGE FOLLOWS]

       


      
        
           


        

        
           


          
            

          

        

        
           


        

      


      Very
truly yours,

       

      ENERGY
AND POWER SOLUTIONS, INC.

       

      /s/ Peter
Ludlum______________

      By: Peter
Ludlum

      Title:
CFO

       

       

      Accepted
and agreed:

       

       

      SILICON
VALLEY BANK

       

      /s/ Kurt
Miklinski____________

      By: Kurt
Miklinski

      Title:
Vice President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0320

DAVID ALLEN WARD,

Petitioner and Appellant,

and

SHANELLE J. VAN DYKE,

Respondent and Appellee.

;,„; ,

AUG 1 2 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

ORDER

Through counsel, Shanelle J. Van Dyke (Van Dyke) moves to dismiss this appeal

because it is premature. Self-represented Appellant David Allen Ward (Ward) has not filed

a response.

Ward is appealing the First Judicial District Court's May 13, 2020 order denying

his motion to modify an order of protection issued in February 2020. Van Dyke points out

that the underlying proceeding began with her petition for a temporary order of protection

in the Lewis and Clark County District Court last year, later consolidated with Ward's

petition to establish a parenting plan.' She points out that Ward already appealed the

February order of protection in March 2020 and later moved to dismiss the appeal on advice

of counsel. This Court dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Van Dyke v. Ward,

No. DA 20-0172, Order (Mont. Mar. 26, 2020). Van Dyke notes that the consolidated

action remains pending, and Ward is represented by counsel in that action. Van Dyke

contends that Ward's instant appeal is an attempt to reach the terms of the February order

of protection, the appeal of which already was dismissed with prejudice. Van Dyke

concludes that this appeal should be dismissed because it is not ripe and does not contain

a M. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification from the District Court. She also requests fees to respond

to what she argues is a frivolous appeal.

The initial action was Van Dyke v. Ward, Cause No. CDR-2019-685, and it was consolidated

with the parenting plan proceeding, Cause No. BDR-2020-49, on April 22, 2020.

08/12/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0320
Upon review, we agree that this appeal is not properly before the Court. Ward does

not appeal a final judgment, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 4(1)(a) and 6(1), as the proceeding

remains pending before the District Court.

We decline to award Van Dyke fees in responding to this appeal.

M. R. App. P. 19(5). Future improper filings may warrant an award of sanctions, and we

expressly warn Ward that he is not to file documents in this Court on his own behalf while

he is represented by counsel and while this matter is still pending in the District Court.

See M. R. App. P. 10(1)(c), 19(5).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Van Dyke's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is

GRANTED. This appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Van Dyke's Request for Fees is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to close this case as of the date of this

Order and to issue remittitur.

The Clerk also is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the appointed mediator,

Robert T. Cummins; to the Honorable Michael F. McMahon, First Judicial District Court;

to Angie Sparks, Clerk of District Court, Lewis and Clark County, under

Cause No. BDR 20-049; to counsel of record; to David B. Gallik, and to David Allen Ward

personally.

DATED this day of August, 2020.

•
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0275 V

UNPUBLISHED

SCOTT EVERHART

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: April 15, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC , for

petitioner.

Kyle Edward Pozza , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On February 21, 2019

, Scott Everhart filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of a Tetanus Dip htheria acellular Pertussis ( “ T dap ” ) vac cine received on November 2, 2 017 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned

to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012 ).2

On April 13, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, R espondent agrees that “ petitioner has sati sfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injur y Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpreta tion ( QAI); petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or d ysfunction in his left shoulder ; his pain and reduced range of motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; his symptoms were limited to the shoulder in wh i ch the

vaccine was admini stered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain his symptom s. ” Id. at 9

.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master