alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James SINGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, CA Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-17774.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2011.*

Filed April 26, 2011.

George M. Vlazakis, Esquire, Law Offices of George M. Vlazakis, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*638Randolph W. Hall, Esquire, Office of the City Attorney, Christopher Kee, John A. Russo, Esquire, William E. Simmons, Esquire, Jennifer Logue, Jennifer Nicole Matthews, Esquire, Oakland City Attorney’s Office, Oakland, CA, for DefendantAppellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, Senior District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *638*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Lesley Wells, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

James Singh appeals the district court’s dismissal of his due process suit involving defendant City of Oakland’s lien assessments against his real property, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, and the decisions in *Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass’n, Inc. v. McNary,*454 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981), and *Patel v. City of San Bernardino,*310 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir.2002), federal subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking where, as here, the state provides a “plain, speedy and efficient remedy” for Mr Singh’s due process claim. *Lowe v. Washoe County,*627 F.3d 1151, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Friendly Energy Exhibit 10.03 - Stock Repurchase Agreement


Exhibit 10.03




STOCK REPURCHASE AGREEMENT




Merus Energy Corporation hereby agrees to sell to Friendly Energy Exploration and Friendly Energy Exploration agrees to purchase 2,900,000 preferred voting shares of Friendly Energy Exploration for a total price of $301,000.  Payment is to be made to Merus Energy Corporation in the form of a note with interest of 8% per annum from April 1, 2010 all due and payable in one year from this date.  




Agreed this 31st day of March 2010.




MERUS ENERGY CORP.

FRIENDLY ENERGY EXPLORATION




/s/ Sean Tallant___________

/s/ Donald Trapp__________

By: Sean Tallant, President

By: Donald L. Trapp, Chief Financial Officer
# A Day in the Life of USCIS

## On an average day in FY 2023 we:

                - Adjudicate more than 40,500 requests for various immigration benefits.
                - Process 3,800 applications to sponsor relatives and future spouses.
                - Analyze nearly 560 tips, leads, cases and detections for potential fraud, public safety and national security concerns.
                - Process refugee applications around the world in support of the refugee admissions ceiling of 15,000 refugees for fiscal year 2022.
                - Grant asylum to 163 individuals already in the United States.
                - Screen more than 547 people for protection based on a credible fear of persecution or torture if they return home.
                - Serve 800 people at in-person appointments for document services and other urgent needs.
                - Fingerprint and photograph 12,000 people at 130 application support centers.
                - Approve applications and petitions to help unite 3 foreign-born orphans with the Americans who want to adopt them.
                - Grant lawful permanent residence to more than 2,300 people and issue nearly 9,200 Green Cards.
                - Welcome more than 3,400 new citizens at naturalization ceremonies—that’s one every 25 seconds in a 24-hour period. Typically, about 47 of these new citizens are members of the U.S. armed forces.
                - Ensure the employment eligibility of 100,000 new hires in the United States.
                - Receive 60,000 phone calls to our toll-free phone line and more than 150,000 inquiries and service requests via online accounts and digital self-help tools.
                - Receive 1.5 million visitor sessions to our website.
                - Conduct automated verifications on employment eligibility and immigration status for more than 124,000 cases in E-Verify and 52,000 cases in SAVE.
                - Conduct manual reviews of eligibility and immigration status for more than 1,300 cases in E-Verify and 7,000 cases in SAVE.
                - Resolve more than 1,000 phone calls and 450 emails related to E-Verify and SAVE inquiries.
                - Process more than 1,500 Form I-134A supporter applications for Ukraine, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela
                - Process 900 Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act requests.

​​​​​​​*Averages are based on fiscal year 2023 data.*

12/11/2022

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



I, John C. Doyle, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(i) the Annual Report of Renovis, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



By:

/s/    John C. DoyleName: John C. Doyle Title: Vice President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer




Dated: March 30, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5924 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5924

    To repeal section 929I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
                        Consumer Protection Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2010

Mr. Issa (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Mica, Mr. 
 Duncan, Mr. Turner, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. 
 Fortenberry, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Schock, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Shuster, 
and Mr. Jones) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal section 929I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
                        Consumer Protection Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``SEC Freedom of Information 
Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Section 929I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (Public Law 111-203) is repealed, and the provisions of 
law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such 
Act had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      Baowen Ren          |   |   |   |   |
| Baowen      Ren              |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |
|                         |   |   |   |   |
| Dated:      April 3, 2009    |   |   |   |   |

----
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-21-00054-CV 

________________________

EVAN MILLER, APPELLANT 

V. 

 

KIM HOOKER, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 64th District Court 

Hale County, Texas 

Trial Court No. A43606-2012; Honorable Danah L. Zirpoli, Presiding 

 

May 28, 2021 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Evan Miller, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting 91a Dismissal 

of Suit with Prejudice and Payment of Attorney’s Fees. Now pending before this court is 

Miller’s motion seeking voluntary dismissal of his appeal. The court finds the motion 

complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that 

granting the motion will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would 
2

otherwise be entitled.1 As no decision of the court has been delivered to date, we grant 

the motion. The appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our 

mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

1 On May 18, 2021, Miller filed a letter with this court titled “Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal,” 

indicating his desire to dismiss this appeal. By letter of May 24, 2021, we notified Miller that we construed 

his letter as a motion requesting voluntary dismissal and would act on the motion unless he requested

otherwise by June 3, 2021. On May 25, 2021, Miller filed a second notice requesting that we dismiss the 

appeal.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 593 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 593

    To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the authorized 
 concurrent receipt of disability severance pay from the Department of 
    Defense and compensation for the same disability under any law 
    administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover all 
veterans who have a combat-related disability, as defined under section 
                          1413a of such title.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2009

 Mr. Smith of Washington (for himself, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Shea-Porter, 
 Mr. Ellison, Mr. Walz, Mr. Mitchell, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Ms. Edwards of 
Maryland, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Courtney, Mr. 
 Gordon of Tennessee, Mr. Ross, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Nye, Mr. Hall of New 
  York, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Tsongas, and Mr. Young of Alaska) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the authorized 
 concurrent receipt of disability severance pay from the Department of 
    Defense and compensation for the same disability under any law 
    administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover all 
veterans who have a combat-related disability, as defined under section 
                          1413a of such title.

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF DISABILITY SEVERANCE PAY FROM THE 
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND COMPENSATION FOR THE SAME 
              DISABILITY UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) No Deduction.--Section 1212(d)(2) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``disability incurred in line of duty in a 
combat zone or incurred during performance of duty in combat-related 
operations as designated by the Secretary of Defense.'' and inserting 
``combat-related disability (as defined in section 1413a of this 
title).''.
    (b) Retroactive Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall take effect as of January 28, 2008, as if included 
in section 1646 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 472), as enacted.
                                 <all>
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5922 

To expand small-scale hydropower. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2010 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. MCCLINTOCK) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To expand small-scale hydropower. 

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 ‘‘The Small-Scale Hy5 dropower Enhancement Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) CONDUIT.—The term ‘‘conduit’’ means any 

9 tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or 

10 similar manmade water conveyance that is operated 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5922 IH

1 for the distribution of water for agricultural, munic2 ipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for 

3 the generation of electricity. 

4 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

5 the Secretary of the Interior. 

6 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF LAW. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any pro8 posed hydroelectric project that seeks to use a conduit that 

9 is in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act 

10 to generate power that does not exceed 1.5 megawatts 

11 shall be exempt from section 30 of the Federal Power Act 

12 (16 U.S.C. 823a). 

13 SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN STRUCTURES IN REPORT 

14 AND STUDY. 

15 The Secretary shall— 

16 (1) include structures that have less than 10 

17 feet of head or would result in less than 1 megawatt 

18 of capacity as part of the study and report required 

19 under section 1834 of the Energy Policy Act of 

20 2005 (Public Law 109–58); 

21 (2) to the maximum extent practicable, consult 

22 with non-Federal and noncontracting interests in im23 plementing this section; and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5922 IH

1 (3) implement this section on a nonreimburs2 able basis. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 99-1788

MOSES RENTI HOLLIDAY, APPELLANT,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY,

HOLDAWAY, IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

In a panel opinion dated February 22, 2001, the Court vacated the September 30, 1999,

decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that denied the appellant's claims for increased

disability ratings for multiple service-connected facial injury residuals, and remanded the matters to

the Board for the Department of Veterans Affairs to make a determination in the first instance as to

the applicability of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096

(Nov. 9, 2000), to the appellant's claim. Holliday v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 280 (2001). 

On March 15, 2001, the Secretary filed a timely motion for panel reconsideration of the

Court's opinion or, in the alternative, for a full Court decision. On April 27, 2001, the Court issued

a per curiam order denying the motion for panel reconsideration of its February 22, 2001, opinion.

Holliday v. Principi, __ Vet.App. __, No. 99-1788 (Apr. 27, 2001) (per curiam order).

Motions for a full Court decision are not favored. Ordinarily they will not be granted unless

such action is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court's decisions or to resolve a

question of exceptional importance. It is not sufficient merely to allege that one of the two foregoing

criteria are met; it must be demonstrated. In the instant case, the appellant has not shown that either

basis exists to warrant a full Court decision.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 
2

ORDERED that the motion for a full Court decision is denied.

DATED: May 24, 2001 PER CURIAM.
EXHIBIT 10.5

				Promissory Note


$3725.00                                                  December 31, 2002
                                                          Newport Beach, CA


     On Demand  for value received the undersigned promises to pay in
lawful money of the United States of America to the order of Mezzanine
Associates, LLC, nominee or assignee, the sum of Three Thousand seven
Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($3725.00), with interest from December 31,
2002 until paid at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum).

     Should interest not be paid, it shall thereafter bear interest as the
principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed an
amount equal to simple interest on the principal at the maximum rate
permitted by law.  The undersigned hereby waives presentment of payment,
protest, notice of protest, notice of nonpayment, and diligence in bringing
suit, and further agrees, in case suit is instituted, to collect this
Promissory Note or any portion thereof, to pay such additional sum for
attorneys' fees as the Court may adjudge reasonable in such suit.




                                   Saiph Corporation



                                   By: /s/ Suki Mudan
                                   ___________________________________
                                   Suki Mudan,  President
Amendment to the Jostens Holding Corp. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.46 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 JOSTENS HOLDING CORP.

 2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Pursuant to resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Directors of Visant Holding Corp. (“Visant Holding”, formerly known as Jostens Holding Corp. (the “Company”)) on
February 26, 2010 in accordance with Section 13 of the Jostens Holding Corp. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), effective as of the date hereof: 
 1. Amendment. The Plan is amended as follows: the following paragraph shall be added after the second paragraph of Section 7 of
the Plan: 
 “Without limitation of the foregoing, in the event of any extraordinary cash stock dividend or
distribution to stockholders of the Company or any transaction similar to the foregoing, the Committee in its sole discretion and without liability to any person shall make such substitution or adjustment, if any, as it deems in good faith to be
equitable as to (i) the number or kind of Shares or other securities issued or reserved for issuance pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to outstanding Options or other right to acquire Shares, (ii) the maximum number of Shares for which
Options or other right to acquire Shares may be granted during a calendar year to any one participant (iii) the maximum amount of an Incentive Option that may be granted during a calendar year to any participant, and/or (iv) the exercise
price per Share of any Option, or shall take such other actions, if any, as it deems in good faith to be equitable, including without limitation approving the payment of a dividend equivalent to the extent of such cash stock dividend or distribution
to be paid to the stockholders of the Company.” 
 2. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be construed and governed
by the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to conflicts of laws principles thereof which might refer such interpretations to the laws of a different state or jurisdiction. 
 3. Full Force and Effect of the Plan. Except as specifically amended herein, all other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms. All references in the Plan to “the Plan” shall be deemed to refer to the Plan as amended by this Amendment to the Plan. 
 [signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, has executed
this Amendment as of the 26th day of February, 2010. 
  

			
	VISANT HOLDING CORP.
	
	By: /s/ Marie D. Hlavaty
	Name: Marie D. Hlavaty
	Title: Vice President
Exhibit 32


                            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  California  Clean  Air,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

         (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: July 15, 2004                /s/ STEPHEN D. WILSON

                                    Stephen D. Wilson
                                    Title: President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                    Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Chief
                                    Accounting Officer, Director
#### William M. Fishback *v.*The Pacific Express Company.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

No. 342.

Argued with No. 341.

*Mr. A. H. Garland*for appellants. *Mr. James P. Clarke*and *Mr. R. C. Garland*were on his brief.

*Mr. Westel W. Morsman*for appellee. *Mr. John M. Moore*was on his brief.

The Chief Justice :

This case differs in no essential respect from that just decided and must take the same course.

*Decree reversed with costs and cause remanded with a direction to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.*