alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

IN RE: RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (MISC.NO. 10-06)

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, HAGEL, MOORMAN, 

LANCE, DAVIS and SCHOELEN, Judges.

O R D E R 

It is ORDERED that this Court's Miscellaneous Order Number 10-06 entered on 

November 17, 2006, is hereby amended as follows: 

In the attached change to Rule 39(a) in the third line of text change “become final”

to read “becomes final”.

DATED: June 14, 2007 FOR THE COURT:

Norman Y. Herring

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 99.1

The following statement is being made to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1349),
which carries with it certain criminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.

Securities
and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549



Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1349), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:



Dated
as of this 13th day of November, 2002.

|/s/ WILLIAM M. RYCHELWilliam M. Rychel
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/ THOMAS M. MASONThomas M. Mason
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
- How To Appeal 
    - Court Forms  and Fees        - Court Forms
      - Fee Schedule
      - Filing Fee 
    - Court Rules and Procedures        - Rules of Practice  and Procedure
      - Procedural Requirements for Staff Conferences
      - Internal Operating Procedures
      - Rules of Admission  and Practice
      - Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability
      - E-Filing Rules
      - Court Process
      - Court Efforts to Ensure Compliance with Court Rules 
    - Information About Practitioners        - Search List of Practitioners
      - Disciplinary Action
      - Key Points in Finding a Representative
      - Compendium of Disciplinary Grievances 
    - Orders and Opinions        - Miscellaneous Orders
      - Ceremonial Orders
      - Opinions and Full Court Orders
      - Search Decisions and Opinions
      - Recent Decisions / Opinions
      - Case Archives 
    - Active Panel Cases 
    - Stayed Cases 
    - Class Action Cases 
    - Electronic Filing 
    - Docket Search 
    - Oral Arguments        - Schedule
      - Oral Arguments via YouTube Live
      - Audio/Video
      - Oral Argument Educational Outreach 

Application for Admission of an Attorney to Practice Before the Court
Application for Admission of a Non-Attorney to Practice Before the Court
Pro Hac Vice Application
Recertification of Non-Attorney Practitioner by New Supervising Attorney
Procedures for Appearance by Law Students
E-Filing Registration Form for Representatives
E-Filing Exemption Form
Motion for an Extension of Time
Informal Brief
Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability
Back

USCAVC 16thJudicial ConferenceSeptember 19-20, 2024

Watch CAVC Oral Arguments on YouTube

Changes to Court Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability - EffectiveJanuary 10, 2024

In the News: Articles

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 01-11

IN RE: RECALL OF SENIOR JUDGE

O R D E R

WHEREAS the Court has been receiving approximately300 Notices ofAppeal everymonth,

as well as numerous motions and other filings, and 

WHEREAS appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court deserve timelyjudicial review

and decision, and 

WHEREAS the Chief Judge of the Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1) may recall

Senior Judges of the Court who have retired but who have agreed to be available for such recall

when their service is needed by the Court, and 

WHEREAS the Chief Judge of the Court has determined that the service of a Senior Judge

is needed by the Court and, if recalled, that Senior Judge would perform judicial duties and provide

substantial service to the Court, and

WHEREAS Senior Judge William P. Greene, Jr., has consented to be available for recall as

needed by the Court,

THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED that, effective January 4, 2011, Judge William P. Greene, Jr., is recalled from

retired status to have and to exercise all of the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge in

active service and to otherwise perform substantial service with the Court as requested by the Chief

Judge. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Greene shall serve in recalled status in this calendar year

to review and decide appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court, and to perform other

substantial service at the request of the Chief Judge, and he shall so serve for up to 90 days, or its

equivalent, or until the Chief Judge of the Court determines that his service is no longer needed.

DATED: January 4, 2011 BY THE COURT:

Bruce E. Kasold

Chief Judge
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 77 (Thursday, April 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21174-21175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-1816-001]

DTE-River Rouge No. 1, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

April 14, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 12, 2000, DTE-River Route No. 1, L.L.C. 
tendered for filing a response to Staff's deficiency

[[Page 21175]]

letter issued in this docket on April 7, 2000 and a revised FERC 
Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Copies of the filing were served upon parties to the above-
captioned proceeding and the Michigan Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., DC 20426, in accordance 
with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests 
should be filed on or before April 24, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9913 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### Donna M. Mucci et al., Respondents, v Timothy N. Ruggerio, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated November 7, 1986, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The conclusory statements offered by the injured plaintiff and her doctor in their affidavits in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment fail to establish a prima facie case of "serious injury” *(Spangenberg v Dombrowski,*114 AD2d 497, 498; *see, Post v Broderick,*104 AD2d 977). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
# Research Guides

USCIS continues to build upon the historical legacy of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Research with INS records can provide historians, genealogists, and other scholars with a better understanding of USCIS’ institutional precursors as well as the history of federal immigration and nationality policies.

Historical federal immigration and naturalization records can be divided into two groups:

          1) Researching Topics and Events; and

          2) Researching Individuals.

More information about each will be found on its respective pages.

12/23/2022

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

          - [TA-W-37,328 and TA-W-37,328A]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 18, 2000, applicable to workers of Thaw Corporation, Snow Creek Division, Wenatchee, Washington. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 31, 2000 (65 FR 17312).                

At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of fleece outerwear and thermal underwear. New information shows that workers separations occurred at the subject firms' Cutting Department, Kent, Washington in March, 2000. Workers perform cutting operations for all Thaw Corporation's production facilities, including Snow Creek Division, Wenatchee, Washington.

Based on these new findings, the Department is amending the certification to cover workers at the Cutting Department, Kent, Washington location.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Thaw Corporation adversely affected by increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-37,328 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Thaw Corporation, Snow Creek Division, Wenatchee, Washington (TA-W-37,328) and the Cutting Department, Kent, Washington (TA-W-37,328A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 28, 1999 through February 18, 2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of April, 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-9969  Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Wayne Badovinus, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Design Within Reach, 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 suchstatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant’ s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:February 17, 2005
Unassociated Document


    


     

    Exhibit
10.39

     

    Agreement
on Debt Transfer and Offset

     

    Party A:  Tianyuan
Capital Development Co., Ltd.

     

    Party B:  Tianshi
International Holdings Group Co., Ltd.

     

    Party C:  Tianjin
Tianshi Biological Engineering Co., Ltd.

     

    


    Party A,
Party B and Party C enter into this Agreement on December 31, 2009, which shall
be observed by all parties of this Agreement.

    Whereas,
Party A is a creditor of Party B and Party B is a creditor of Party C. After
consultation, Party A, Party B and Party C agree the provisions as
follows:

    1.           Party
C pays off the loan payable of USD3,283,468.66 (principal of USD3,202,742 and
USD80,726.66 is the interest) to Party A in place of Party B;

    2.           Party
B writes off the debt of Party C with the same amount;

    3.           Party
A, Party B and Party C shall perform this Agreement, including writing proper
receipts on December 31, 2009.

    4.           This
Agreement is effective as of the date first written above and is signed by three
parties for confirmation.

    


    Party A:  Tianyuan
Capital Development Co., Ltd.

    Legal
Representative: Jinyuan Li

    Signature:  /s/ Jinyuan
Li

    


    Party B:  Tianshi
international Holdings Group Co., Ltd.

    Legal
Representative:  Jinyuan Li

    Signature:/s/ Jinyuan
Li

     

    Party C:  Tianjin
Tianshi Biological Engineering Co.,
Ltd.

    Legal
Representative:  Jinyuan Li

    Signature:/s/ Jinyuan
Li
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 10-06

IN RE: RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, HAGEL, MOORMAN, 

 LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the authority of 38 U.S.C. §§ 7263(b) and 7264(a) and consistent with

28 U.S.C. § 2071(b) and (e), the Court has adopted a clerical revision to Rule 39(a) of the Court's

Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). It is

ORDERED that the phrase "a jurisdictional requirement" shall be stricken from Rule 39(a)

and that, accordingly, the attached change to Rule 39(a) is hereby published and will be effective

as of this date.

 

DATED: November 17, 2006 BY THE COURT:

WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR.

Chief Judge
RULE 39. ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES

(a) Application. An application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) for award of

attorney fees and/or other expenses in a case must be filed with the Clerk not

later than 30 days after the Court's judgment become final pursuant to 38

U.S.C. § 7291(a) (which occurs 60 days after entry of judgment under Rule 36)

or, consistent with Rule 41(b), upon the issuance of an order on consent

dismissing, terminating, or remanding a case. The time (which is a jurisdictional

requirement set by the statute) for filing an application under this subsection

may not be extended. See Rule 25 (filing and service). The application must

include the fees and expenses claimed for the submission of that application.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTIAGO VAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MARTHA LEE WALTERS, Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court; THOMAS A. BALMER; CHRISTOPHER L. GARRETT; ROGER J. DEHOOG, Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court; MEAGAN A. FLYNN; REBECCA DUNCAN; ADRIENNE NELSON, Associate Justices of the Oregon Supreme Court, each sued in their official capacities,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 35759

D.C. No. 3:20

- cv

- 01761

- HZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2023 * *

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 35759

Santiago Vazquez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection violation in

connect ion with the temporary rules governing admission to the Oregon bar in

2020

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon

v. County of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018)

. We affirm.

The district court properly grante d summary judgment because Vazquez

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the classification

scheme in question wa s not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. See

United States v. Padilla

-

Diaz , 862 F.3d 856, 862 (9th Cir. 2017) ( explaining

rational bases review and recognizing that the challenger of a classification bear s

the burden of “negativing every conceivable basis which might support it” (citation

omitted and alteration adopted) ); s ee al so Gallinger v. Becerra , 898 F.3d 1012,

1018 (9th Cir. 2018) ( explaining that “ classifications that are to some extent both

underinclusive and overinclusive ” may be upheld under rational

- basis review

( citation omitted ) ).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vazquez’s motion

for leave to file a supplemental complaint because Vazquez ’s proposed complaint

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation

claim

. See Capp v. C

ounty of San Diego , 940 F.3d 1046, 105 3

- 58 (9th Cir. 2019)

(setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim and explaining that3 21

- 35759

a plaintiff must plausibly allege that retaliat ion was the but

- for motive for

defendants’ actions ) ; see also id. at 1055 (recognizing that an allegation is not

plausible where there is an “obvious alternative explanation” for alleged

misconduct (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 682 (2009 ) ) ; Pla nned

Parenthood of S. Ariz

. v. Neely , 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (standard of

review).

Defendants ’ motion to substitute party (Docket Entry No. 26 ) is granted.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32

                 STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REGARDING
            FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS


I, Stephen D. Wilson state and certify as follows:

         The financial statements filed with the report on Form 10-KSB for the
period ended December 31, 2002 fully comply with the requirements of Sections
13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in said periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of California Clean Air, Inc.

         This Statement is submitted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



      April 29, 2004                                    /s/ STEPHEN D. WILSON
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10214]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / 
Notices

[[Page 20786]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Carrol Creek Fire Salvage and Restoration Project; Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest, Wallowa County, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Assessment for the Carrol Creek Fire Salvage 
and Restoration Project is available for review. The EA discusses 
alternatives considered for resource recovery and restoration for the 
Carrol Creek fire area, which burned in August 2000. Five alternatives 
are considered representing a range of treatment levels for the area. 
The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) includes a project-specific 
amendment to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plan. This amendment replaces 175 acres of burned Designated 
Old Growth habitat with the best available adjacent habitat. The Carrol 
Creek area is about 11 air miles southeast of Joseph, Oregon. The 
Environmental Assessment is available upon request from the Wallowa 
Valley Ranger District, 88401 Highway 82, Enterprise, OR, 97828: and at 
the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest website at www.fs.fed.us/r6/w-w.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Paul 
Survis, Wallowa Valley Ranger District, 88401 Highway 82, Enterprise, 
OR, 97828, or phone 541-426-5681.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Dated: April 16, 2001.
Karyn L. Wood,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-10214 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3-110-11-M