alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cargill Financial Services International, Inc., Appellant, v Bank Finance and Credit Limited, Also Known as OJSC Bank Finance and Credit, Respondent.

Submitted March 8, 2010;

decided May 4, 2010

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Jingesh MEHTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73232.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.

Filed Oct. 8, 2010.

Teresa Salazar-Cosmos, Immigration Practice Group A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Yedidya Cohen, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Jingesh Mehta (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of a May 26, 2006, order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s March 1, 2006 denial of his motion to reopen on the basis that there were no grounds for reconsideration.1 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, as amended by the REAL ID Act, and we deny the petition.

The time limit for filing a petition for review is “mandatory and jurisdictional” and “not subject to equitable tolling.” *Stone v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); *see also Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996). The filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider does not toll the statutory time in which to appeal the underlying final order. *See Stone,*514 U.S. at 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537; *Martinez-Serrano,*94 F.3d at 1258. Because Petitioner did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s May 24, 2006, final order denying his motion to reopen, we do not have jurisdiction to review anything other than the BIA’s denial of reconsideration.

In a motion to reconsider, unlike a motion to reopen, the petitioner must identify errors that the BIA made in its underlying decision. *Matter of Cerna,*20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402-03 (BIA 1991); *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). These alleged errors are reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will be reversed only if the BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005).

Here, the only alleged errors that Petitioner raised in his motion for reconsideration were that the BIA had incorrectly determined that Jingesh Mehta was his true identity and that his case should be consolidated with his other proceeding, in which he was using the name Jignesh Jari-wala. In its reconsideration order, the BIA found no errors in its prior determinations and held that there were no grounds for reconsideration. Because we *249do not have jurisdiction to review the merits of Petitioner’s underlying claims, and because we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion or otherwise act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law when it denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, we deny the petition.

DENIED.

*

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

1

. The patties are familiar with the facts and we repeat them here only as necessary to explain our decision.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1060

Natural Gas Basis Swap - Trunkline LA - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price of the 

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly 

price published by Platts Inside FERC for the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Trunkline LA

published price for the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas 

futures contract final settlement price for the corresponding contract month on the last trading 

day for that contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
Eurex Clearing AG

Weekly Summary of Rule Amendments
Nos. 039-23, 041-23

June 9, 2023

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(d), Eurex Clearing AG (“Eurex Clearing”) submits this Weekly
Notification of the following rule amendments issued during the week of June 5, 2023:

e Eurex Clearing Circular No. 039-23 (June 7, 2023): Amendments to the Price List of Eurex
Clearing AG: Adaption of cash handling fee for Swiss Francs and Japanese Yen. This circular
provides fora cash handling fee for Eligible Margin Assets in the form of cash delivered in Swiss
Francs and Japanese Yen.

e Eurex Clearing Circular No. 041-23 (June 9, 2023): Amendments to the Clearing Conditions and
to the FCM Default Rules of Eurex Clearing AG — End of Consultation.. This circular states that
there were no comments received regarding the proposed amendments with respect to Adjustments
to the Default Fund Contribution Delivery Period set forth in Eurex Clearing Circular 028-23,
which was submitted previously as a 40.6 submission, and confirms the effective date of July 3,
2023 stated in that circular.

Copies of the above material is available at: https://www.curex.com/ec-en/find/circulars. If you require
any additional information, please contact the undersigned at (312) 544-1087.

Sincerely,

/s/ Eric Seinsheimer

By: Eric Seinsheimer

Title: US CCO, Eurex Clearing AG

Dated: June 9, 2023

Internal
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**MTS Systems Corporation**

**Executive Variable Compensation (EVC) Plan**

**2008 Performance Goals**

 

The Board of Directors of MTS Systems Corporation has established the Performance Goals for the fiscal year 2008 Performance Period. They are as follows:

 

Earnings Per Share;

Earnings Before Interest and Taxes;

Working Capital Rate to Revenue; and

Revenue
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14090]


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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-01-021]


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: June 7, 2001 at 11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   
    1. Agenda for future meeting: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 and 731-TA-707-710 (Review) (Certain 
Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from 
Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy)--briefing and vote. (The 
Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and 
Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on June 21, 2001.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: May 29, 2001.

    By order of the Commission:
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14090 Filed 5-31-01; 2:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Andrew Godfrey,  Chief  Accounting  Officer  of First Quantum Ventures, Inc., (the "Company"),  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 my knowledge:





(1) The  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




By:
/s/ Andrew GodfreyAndrew GodfreyChief Executive Officer


Date: May 13, 2011





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


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





A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osprey Ventures,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter and six month period ended
November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Periodic Report), I, James Yiu Yeung Lung, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: January 13, 2009

/s/ James Yiu Yeung Lung

James Yiu Yeung Lung Chief Executive Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2496 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2496

 To provide the right of American Indians born in Canada or the United 
 States to pass the borders of the United States to any individual who 
 is a member, or is eligible to be a member, of a Federally recognized 
  Indian tribe in the United States or Canada, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2019

  Mr. Kilmer (for himself, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Higgins of New York, Mr. 
Cole, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Young, and Ms. DelBene) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide the right of American Indians born in Canada or the United 
 States to pass the borders of the United States to any individual who 
 is a member, or is eligible to be a member, of a Federally recognized 
  Indian tribe in the United States or Canada, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Tribal Border Crossing Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. AMERICAN INDIANS BORN IN CANADA OR THE UNITED STATES.

    Section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1359) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``born in Canada'' the following: 
        ``or the United States''; and
            (2) by inserting after ``but such right shall extend only 
        to persons'' the following: ``who are members, or are eligible 
        to be members, of a Federally recognized Indian tribe in the 
        United States or Canada, or''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ann M. WHITE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Internal Revenue Service; Brenda L. Vernam, Revenue Agent, IRS, Appellees.

No. 09-3901.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 28, 2010.

Filed: June 2, 2010.

*564Ann M. White, O’Brien, FL, pro se.

Dorotha M. Ocker, U.S. Department of Justice, Dallas, TX, Michael James Roess-ner, John Schumann, U.S. Department of Justice, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ann M. White appeals the district court’s1 order denying her petition to quash a third-party summons. After careful review, *see United States v. Kaiser,*397 F.3d 641, 643 (8th Cir.2005) (clear-error standard of review), we conclude the denial of her petition was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donald Ray NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50889

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donald Ray Nelson, federal prisoner # 01636-051, appeals the district court’s decision granting a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and *935denying a motion to reconsider that ruling. He argues that, pursuant to *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 788, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court was not limited to the amended guidelines range but could have granted a greater reduction after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

In *Dillon v. United States,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), the Supreme Court held that *Booker*does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. Because Nelson’s argument is foreclosed by *Dillon,*the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an additional thirty days to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 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.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549   FORM 8-K   CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934   Date of report (Date of earliest event reported) August 6, 2009 -------------- CAPITAL RESOURCE ALLIANCE INC. (Name of Small Business issuer in its charter)   COLORAD00-5272490-0219158___ (State or other jurisdiction of            (Commission File No.)    (IRS Employer incorporation or organization)                                                 Identification No.)   16125 Shawbrooke Rd. SWCalgary, AlbertaCanada                                           T2Y 3B3 (Address of principal executive offices)  (403) 827-7936 (Registrants telephone number) -------------------------    Item 2 01. Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets  On August 6, 2009, Capital Resource Alliance entered into an agreement to purchase the assets of Engineered Construction Solutions Inc. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The purchase with a closing date of October 31, 2009 or sooner, ownership of the proprietary and revolutionary building-system technology called WonderWall.  A copy of the agreement is attached to this filing as Exhibit 99.2.  ITEM 5.02.  Departure of Directors or Principle Officers, Election of Directors,      Appointment of Principle Officers.  Mr. Ray Gordon of Calgary, AB, President and CEO of Engineered Construction Solutions Inc. has joined the Board of Directors of Capital Resource Alliance, Inc. and has been appointed as President and CEO. Fred Fitzgerald will give up his duties as president of Capital Resource Alliance and while retaining his duties as Secretary, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer.  ITEM 9.01. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.  EXHIBITS  99.1     Board Minutes  August 6, 2009. 99.2     Acquisition Contract  SIGNATURES  Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.  August 10, 2009  Capital Resource Alliance Inc.  /s Frederick Fitzgerald Frederick Fitzgerald,   Secretary
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TitanMachinery Inc. (the “Company” ) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,David J. Meyer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  January 11,2008

 

 
|   | /s/ David. J. Meyer     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | David J. Meyer,         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
[931 NE2d 516, 905 NYS2d 532]

#### Joseph E. Kaufman, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Joseph D. Kaufman, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Quickway, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Decided June 8, 2010

*908APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Alexander J. Wulwick,*New York City, and *Duane C. Felton,*Staten Island, for appellants.

*Law Firm of Frank W. Miller,*East Syracuse *(Frank W. Miller*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this Dram Shop Act action involving a convenience store’s allegedly illegal sale of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated customer who later caused a fatal traffic accident, the Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court’s order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division held that the store clerk’s out-of-court statements to a State Trooper investigating the accident were not admissible under the hearsay exception for prior inconsistent statements to rebut her later deposition testimony *(see Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.,*21 NY2d 518, 524 [1968]; *cf. Nucci v Proper,*95 NY2d 597, 603 [2001]). We disagree. The supporting deposition prepared by the Trooper and signed by the witness under penalty of perjury contained numerous indicia of reliability justifying its admissibility under *Letendre.*And, as in *Letendre,*the store clerk was available for cross-examination. In addition, the statement was sufficient to *909create a triable issue regarding whether the driver was visibly intoxicated at the time of the alcohol sale *(see*Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]; General Obligations Law § 11-101).

Nevertheless, summary judgment was properly granted to defendants. Plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue to rebut defendants’ prima facie evidence demonstrating that no reasonable or practical connection existed between the allegedly illegal sale of alcohol and the accident *(see Oursler v Brennan,*67 AD3d 36, 43 [4th Dept 2009], *lv granted*68 AD3d 1824 [4th Dept 2009]; *Schmidt v Policella,*43 AD3d 1141, 1143 [2d Dept 2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 817 [2008]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
**EXHIBIT 23.5****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name as a Qualified Person for Sections 7to 15 of the Oyu Tolgoi Technical Report dated March 2007 under the heading “Item 3: Description ofthe Business – Oyu Tolgoi Copper and Gold Project” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for theyear ended December 31, 2006, dated March 30, 2007, and in the 40-F.Sincerely,   */s/ Robert Cinits* Title: Principal Geologist  Company: AMEC Americas Limited  Date: March 30, 2007
15
#### In the Matter of Yolanda Strong, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

Submitted April 5, 2010;

decided June 17, 2010

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*14 NY3d 704 (2010)].