alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DEPIERRIS, Appellant, v. SLAVIN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department

March 16, 1894.)

Action by Maud E. S. Depierris against Henry B. Slavin and others. For former report, see 26 N. Y. Supp. 970.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and FOLLETT, JJ.

A. H. Joline, for appellant.

G. H. Adams, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We think that there are subjects of examination pertinent to the cause of action alleged which do not necessarily tend to establish the commission of any criminal offense upon the part of the defendants, and for that reason, there being no other question submitted to us, the order should be affirmed. Davies v. Fish, 35 Hun, 430. The order must be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Richard R. RADA, Private, U.S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,826.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Nov. 7, 1975.

*Colonel Alton H. Harvey, Captain Michael R. Caryl,*and *Captain John M. Nolan*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Larry R. McDowell*and *Captain Richard S. Kleager*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Here, as in *United States v. Cree, 1*M.J. 210 (1975), the accused contends that the staff judge advocate’s post-trial review is erroneous and prejudicial because it includes a summary of the evidence of an offense of which the accused was acquitted. For the reasons set out in our opinion in *Cree,*we affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.

FERGUSON, Senior Judge

(dissenting):

For the reasons set forth in my dissent in *United States v. Cree,*1 M.J. 210 (1975), I dissent.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1


          COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE FOR
            THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND FOR THE
              THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE PERIOD FROM
                     JANUARY 30, 1998 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1998

          The following calculation is submitted in accordance with requirements
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     For the three months ended      For the six months ended
                                                               June 30                        June 30
                                                     ----------------------------    ---------------------------
                                                        1999            1998            1999          1998(1)
                                                     ------------    ------------    ------------    -----------
                                                                      (amounts in thousands)
<S>                                                  <C>              <C>              <C>            <C>
Net income available for common shareholders             ($1,832)         $2,008           ($873)         $ 653
                                                    ============    ============    ============    ===========

Weighted average common shares outstanding used in
     calculating basic and diluted net income
     (loss) per common share                               7,201           7,393           7,208          7,391
                                                    ============    ============    ============    ===========

Basic and diluted net income (loss) per common
     share                                                ($0.25)          $0.27          ($0.12)         $0.09
                                                    ============    ============    ============    ===========
</TABLE>

(1)  Represents the period from January 30, 1998 to June 30, 1998
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**893 KA 15-00094**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BRIAN L. SMITH, ALSO KNOWN AS BRIAN LEE SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, A.J.), rendered June 25, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated family offense.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in People v Smith ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 10, 2016]).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Walker, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered October 5, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige, 54*AD2d 631; *cf. People v*
      *733
      *Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
31.1(** **b)**
  **CERTIFICATION
OF CO-CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**
 **OF
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  I,
Douglas Stukel, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Capital Growth Systems,
Inc.;
  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 small business issuer as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
  4. The small
business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and
  5. The small
business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business
issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.
  ****Date: May 4, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Douglas
  StukelDouglas StukelCo-chief Executive
    Officer
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 Quarterly Report of Sonic Automotive, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David P. Cosper, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ David P. CosperDavid P. Cosper Vice Chairman and Chief Financial
Officer


August 10, 2009
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

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 on Form 20-F of Tikcro Technologies Ltd (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Eric
Paneth, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, as amended; and

(2)       
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

June 29, 2009

| |  | By: /s/ Eric Paneth
Eric
PanethPrincipal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF MEADOWCRAFT, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,920
<PP&E>                                          85,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           197
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,173
<SALES>                                         30,973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,973
<CGS>                                           28,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,293)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.20)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.20)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THE EARNINGS PER SHARE ("EPS") INFORMATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARD NO. 128, EARNINGS PER SHARE.  AS
SUCH, BASIC EPS AND DILUTED EPS HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN PLACE OF PRIMARY AND FULLY
DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>
        
 

</TABLE>
#### Norma SILVA-GARCIA, a.k.a. Priya Chuwdry, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71997.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esquire, Hollywood, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Steven Frank Day, Esquire, Office of Immigration Litigation, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, U.S. Department *716of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Norma Silva-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Silva-Garcia contends that Muslims are persecuted in Mexico and that she has a well-founded fear of persecution due to her conversion to Islam, her marriage to a Muslim, and her use of a head covering. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Silva-Garcia failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because she failed to establish an objective basis for fearing harm in Mexico. *See Cuadras v. INS,*910 F.2d 567, 571 (9th Cir.1990); *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir.2009) (record did not compel a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution). Accordingly, we reject her asylum claim.

Because Silva-Garcia failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Silva-Garcia failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured if removed to Mexico. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
# USCIS Notification of Violation

**USCIS Notification of Violation Posted Pursuant to the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2020**

The Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2020 (FEAA) amends the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 to strengthen Federal antidiscrimination laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and expands accountability within the Federal Government. Section 1133 of the FEAA, Notification of Violation, requires federal agencies to post final agency actions that result in a finding of discrimination within 90 days on the agency’s public website. The notice must state that a finding of discrimination has been made and must remain posted not less than one year.

**FY 2023 Notifications of Violation:**
                - USCIS Violation of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Law Q4-1 (PDF, 92.38 KB)
                - USCIS Violation of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Law Q3-1 (PDF, 128.89 KB)

**FY 2022 Notifications of Violation:**
                - USCIS Violation of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Law Q4-3 (PDF, 238.88 KB)

09/27/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/31/2015 3:07:48 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 77 (Thursday, April 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO-500 0777-XQ]


Front Range Resource Advisory Council (Colorado) Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix, notice is hereby given that the next meeting 
of the Front Range Resource Advisory Council (Colorado) will be held on 
May 11, 2000 in Canon City, Colorado.
    The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:15 a.m. at the Holy Cross 
Abbey Community Center, 2951 E. Highway 50, Canon City, Colorado. 
Topics will include a discussion on the Mining Regulations and update 
on the Recreation Guidelines for Colorado.
    All Resource Advisory Council meetings are open to the public. 
Interested persons may make oral statements to the Council at 9:30 a.m. 
or written statements may be submitted for the Council's consideration. 
The Center Manager may limit the length of oral presentations depending 
on the number of people wishing to speak.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 11, 2000, from 9:15 
a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Front Range Center, 3170 
East Main Street, Canon City, Colorado 81212.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Smith at (719) 269-8553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary minutes for the Council meeting will 
be maintained in the Front Range Center and will be available for 
public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within 
thirty (30) days following the meeting.

    Dated: April 11, 2000.
Stuart L. Freer,
Associate Front Range Center Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-9856 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
Exhibit 32.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DND Technologies, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

      To my  knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 14, 2005

                                               BY: DOUGLAS N. DIXON
                                                   ----------------
                                                   DOUGLAS N. DIXON
                                                   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
# Antes de empezar

Le exhortamos a familiarizarse con cada proceso de adopción, ya que existen diferencias significativas entre cada uno de ellos. Una agencia de adopción estará disponible para ayudarle a organizar la solicitud de adopción, pero no puede representarle ante USCIS ni asesorarle sobre los aspectos legales de la inmigración de su hijo. Si busca representación legal para los procesos de adopción, usted necesitará considerar contactar a un abogado.

## Leyes

Después de la aprobación del huérfano y de la solicitud de La Haya

Las adopciones entre países están regidas por tres conjuntos de leyes diferentes:
                
                - 	La ley federal estadounidense
                
                - 	Las leyes del país de origen del niño
                
                - 	Las leyes de su lugar de residencia (estado / territorio de los Estados Unidos o país extranjero).
                

## Procesos

Hay tres tipos diferentes de procesos para que su hijo adoptivo emigre:
                
                - 	Adopciones bajo el Tratado de La Haya
                
                - 	Adopciones de huérfanos (exentas del Tratado de La Haya)
                
                - 	Inmigrar otros hijos adoptivos. 
                

Para información adicional vea la guía A3: Soy ciudadano estadounidense - ¿Cómo ayudo a mi hijo adoptado a inmigrar a Estados Unidos o convertirse en ciudadano estadounidense?  (PDF, 230.33 KB) Esta guía explica las tres maneras diferentes en que un niño nacido en el extranjero puede convertirse en residente permanente legal (LPR, por sus siglas en inglés) o en ciudadano estadounidense basado en una adopción por parte de un ciudadano estadounidense o LPR. Cada proceso es distinto y tiene requisitos de elegibilidad diferentes. Este recurso puede ayudar a las familias interesadas a aprender más acerca del proceso de adopción entre países.

## Estudios del hogar

Los estudios del hogar son sumamente importantes en el proceso de las adopciones entre países. Visite la página de Información sobre el estudio del hogar, para conocer:
                
                - 	¿Qué es un estudio del hogar?
                
                - 	¿Quién lo lleva a cabo?
                
                - 	¿Cuáles son los requisitos para los estudios del hogar?
                

## Cuándo contactarnos

Estamos comprometidos en decidir los casos a la brevedad posible. Para más información acerca de cuánto tiempo pudiera demorarse su caso, por favor visite la página Tiempos de Procesamiento. Si no se ha tomado una determinación sobre su caso dentro del tiempo usual de trámite, puede contactarnos a través de nuestra página Información de Contacto sobre Adopciones de USCIS.

## Luego de la adopción

El proceso no culmina con la adopción. Asegúrese de entender los requisitos de ciudadanía y cómo obtener los documentos relacionados a ello. Para más información visite la sección Después de la aprobación del huérfano y de la solicitud de La Haya.

03/23/2018

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
#### In the Matter of John Indelicato, Appellant, v Town of Lloyd et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided April 3, 2007

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### TOMPKINS et al., Appellants, v. HUNTER et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by Charles N. Tompkins and others against Charles Hunter and others.

No opinion. Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs, on the opinion, of BRADLEY, J., at special term. 24 N. Y. Supp. 8.