alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: VINODH RAGHUBIR,

Petitioner

______________________

2022-102

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00388-EGB, Senior 

Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Vinodh Raghubir petitions this court for writ of mandamus. The United States moves for summary dismissal. 

Mr. Raghubir moves to strike the United States’ motion

and also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On August 28, 2020, the United States Court of Federal 

Claims dismissed Mr. Raghubir’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Raghubir sought this court’s review. On 

December 22, 2020, this court dismissed his appeal as frivolous. In re Raghubir, 831 F. App’x 957, 958 (Fed. Cir. 

2020). On September 13, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims 

received from Mr. Raghubir a submission entitled

Case: 22-102 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2021
2 IN RE: RAGHUBIR

“Demand/Motion for Reinstatement.” On September 20, 

2021, the Court of Federal Claims issued an order notifying 

Mr. Raghubir that his submission would not be docketed

because his case was over. 

Mr. Raghubir’s petition argues that the Court of Federal Claims’ September 20, 2021 order “violat[ed] federal 

law and rules of procedure,” which “resulted in vindictive 

proceedings.” Pet. at 2 (capitalization omitted). But he has 

not met the high standard for mandamus relief because, 

among other things, he has not shown a “clear and indisputable,” right to having his submission, filed almost a year 

after his case was over, considered by the trial court. Will 

v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 665–66 (1978) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is denied.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

December 07, 2021 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s28

Case: 22-102 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2021
*** ***

 

 

* *

##  Consent of Independent Auditors

* *

* *

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-13144) of our reportdated February 4, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsof Compugen Ltd., included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the yearended December 31, 2003.

* *

* *

* *

* *

                                                                                        YoursTruly,

* *

* *

* *
| April 5, 2004    | KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER                 |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| Tel-Aviv, Israel |   A Member of Ernst & Young Global |

* *

# 

* *

**____ 1 ____**
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         May 21, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Four Points by Sheraton, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Robert C. Goldman, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Divisions of Extramural Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2217, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301 496-2550, rg159w@nih.gov.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 20, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-10354  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfredo FLORES-BUSTAMANTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40754

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alfredo Flores-Bustamante, Washington, MS, pro se.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alfredo Flores-Bustamante has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Flores-Bustamante has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the period ended January 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond P. Springer, in my
capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Raymond P. SpringerDate: 
      April 1, 2010
            Raymond
      P. Springer
              Secretary
      and Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has det ermined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 98-30778

___________________________

NIKKI LEADER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SCHOOL BOARD OF THE PARISH OF LIVINGSTON, LOUISIANA; J. ROGERS

POPE; AND J. LLOYD WAX,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(97-CV-878)

___________________________________________________

February 12, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant appeals the dismissal of her suit against

Defendants-Appellees for failure to timely serve DefendantsAppellees in accordance with FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m) and also appeals the

denial of her Motion for Reconsideration.

FED.R.C IV.P. 4(m) authorizes a district court to dismiss a

complaint if not timely served, unless good cause is shown for the

failure. If good cause is shown, the district court must extend

the time for service of process. Even if good cause is not shown,

however, the district court may, in its discretion, extend the time2

for service of process. T hompson v. Brown

, 91 F.3d 20 (5 th Cir.

1996).

In the present case, the district court correctly relied upon

the definition of “good cause” in Lindsey v. United States Railroad

Retirement Bd.

, 101 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 19 96). See McGinnis v.

Shalala

, 2 F.3d 548, 550 n.1 (5th Cir.), reh’ g en banc denied , 5

F.3d 530 (5th Cir . 1993), c ert. denied

, 510 U.S. 1191, 114 S.Ct.

1293, 127 L.E d.2d 647 (1994) (noting that P ioneer Investment

Services Co. v. Brunswick Associated Limited Partnership

, 507 U.S.

380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993), d id not change the

standard of good cause under FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m)). The district

court found that Plaintiff-Appellant had not shown good cause and

granted the Motion to Dismiss. We find no abuse of discretion in

this decision and affirm the district court’s Judgment of April 6,

1998.

On reconsideration, the district court agai n found that

Plaintiff-Appellant had not shown good cause and also declined to

exercise its discretion to extend the time for service of process

even when good cause is not shown. We find no abuse of discretion

in this decision and affirm the district court’s Ruling of June 16,

1998.

AFFIRMED.
#### Avtar Singh RIAT, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72142.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 27, 2011.

*657Avtar Singh Riat, Chatsworth, CA, pro se.

Oil, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Avtar Singh Riat, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, and review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Riat’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where Riat failed to show he had been prejudiced by former counsel. *See id.*at 793-94 (“[Prejudice results when ‘the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.’ ”).

In his opening brief, Riat fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency’s determination that his motion to reopen to adjust status was untimely. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. *See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,*633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

Riat’s remaining contention is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**KELLEY MARIE DREYER-SPITZ**

**PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM INACTIVE STATUS**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 175 DB 2014 (No. 14 RST 2015)** 

**Attorney Registration No. 82450** 

**(Delaware County)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13 th**  **day of February, 2015, the Report and Recommendatio n of**  **Disciplinary Board Member dated February 4, 2015, is a pproved and it is ORDERED**  **that Kelley Marie Dreyer-Spitz, who has been on Inact ive Status, has never been**  **suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications,**  **competency and learning in law required for admission t o practice in the**  **Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to act ive status as a member of the**  **Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation**  **and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petit ioner.**
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





Section
1350 Certification





In
connection with the Annual Report of GoldSpring, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert T. Faber,
[President] and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  April
9, 2010





/s/ Robert T. FaberRobert
      T. FaberPresident
      and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
Officer)





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 2905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1037]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


First Meeting of the Advisory Committee for the 2003 World 
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-03 Advisory Committee)

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 
notice advises interested persons that the initial meeting of the WRC-
03 Advisory Committee will be held on January 30, 2001, at the Federal 
Communications Commission. The purpose of the meeting is to begin 
preparations for the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference.

DATES: January 30, 2001; 10:00 am-12:00 noon.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Garcia, FCC International 
Bureau, Planning and Negotiations Division, at (202) 418-0763.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of its preparations for the 2003 
World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-03), the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) has amended the charter of its Advisory 
Committee for the 2000 Radiocommunication Conference. The Advisory 
Committee will now be called the Advisory Committee for the 2003 
Radiocommunication Conference, and its scope of activities will be to 
address issues contained in the agenda for WRC-03. The Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) established the WRC-03 Advisory 
Committee to provide advice, technical support and recommendations 
relating to the preparation of United States proposals and positions 
for the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-03).
    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 
92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the first 
meeting of the WRC-03 Advisory Committee. The WRC-03 Advisory Committee 
has an open membership. All interested parties are invited to 
participate in the Advisory Committee and to attend its meetings. The 
proposed agenda for the first meeting is as follows:

Agenda

First Meeting of the WRC-03 Advisory Committee, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
    January 30, 2001; 10:00 am-12:00 noon.
    1. Opening Remarks.
    2. Approval of Agenda.
    3. Report on Suggestions for Improving the WRC Preparatory Process.
    4. Outline of WRC-03 Preparatory Process.
    5. Advisory Committee Structure and Meeting Schedule.
    6. Report on Recent International Telecommunication Union Meetings.
    7. Other Business.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-1037 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
Order entered December 30, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00987
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.Y.O., A CHILD On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District Court

Col lin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469
- 53096
- 2017

ORDER By letter filed December 23, 2020, appellant informs the Court she has made payment arrangements for the reporter’s record

. Accordingly, we ORDER Stephanie Hunn , Offic ial Court Reporter for th e 469th Judicial District Court, to file the record no later than January 19, 2021.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Hunn and the parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board.

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

*Name of Committee:*                         Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board.                    

*Date:*                         June 26, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To discuss sleep research and education priorities and programs.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building 45, Conference Room D, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Carl E. Hunt, MD, Director, National Center on Sleep Disorders Research, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 10138, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-0199, huntc@nhlbi.nih.gov.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Disease Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 20, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-10365  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Boyce, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered May 30, 1985, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a minor, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment on the convictions for rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree was proper. Although these crimes took place over a continuous course of activity, they constituted separate and distinct acts, and none of the completed offenses was a material element of another offense. Therefore, concurrent sentences were not mandated (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; see *also, People v Brathwaite,*63 NY2d 839, 842-843; *People v Dorsey,*79 AD2d 611; *People v McMillan,*61 AD2d 800). We decline to substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court *(see,*CPL 470.15 [3]; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Niehoff, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.