alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGEL OSORNIO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 16306

D.C. No. 3:19

- cv

- 08267

- GMS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 16, 2023 * *

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Angel Osornio appeals from the District Court’s summary judgment holding

that her complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security was untimely.

* 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

JUN 16 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to

explain our decision.

A ny individual may commence a civil action within sixty days of the mailing

to h er of notice of the Co mmissioner’s final decision or within such further time as

the Commissioner may allow. 42 U.S.C. 405(g) . Osornio does not dispute that she

failed to commence a civil action within the sixty

- day deadline. She also did not

request an extension to the sixty

- d ay period.

The D istrict C ourt correctly declined to apply equitable tolling. “[A] litigant

seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he

has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circum stance

stood in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo , 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Osornio f ailed

to demonstrate she pursued her rights diligently

. Osornio does not dispute that she

received an Appeals Council letter informing her of the sixty

- day deadline to file a

complaint in the District Court or request an extension. Despite this, Osornio failed

to file her complaint within the proscribed period. Furthermore, there is no evidence

that some extraordinary obstacle stood in her way preventing her from asserting her

rights. See 544 U.S. at 418. 1

AFFIRMED.

1 Osornio’s motion to expedite settlement

, Docket No. 16, and supplemental motion

to expedite settlement, Docket no. 17, are DENIED.
# C_2023321EN.01006601.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/66

---

Action brought on 28 July 2023 — Almaghout v Council

(Case T-437/23)

(2023/C 321/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hala Almaghout (represented by: M. Lester and M. Birdling, Barristers and G. Symeonidis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Decision (CFSP) 2023/1035 of 25 May 2023
   (1), maintaining the listing of the Applicant under Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP as amended and Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 as amended (the Contested Measures), insofar as they apply to the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision (CFSP) 2023/1035 of 25 May 2023
   (1), maintaining the listing of the Applicant under Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP as amended and Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 as amended (the Contested Measures), insofar as they apply to the Applicant.

| — | order that the Council pay her costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Council pay her costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant contends that her inclusion in the Contested Measures is a result of manifest errors of assessment by the Council. In particular, she is no longer a member of the Makhlouf family, has no connection with the Syrian regime, has no influence over it and poses no risk of circumvention. Contrary to the reasons given for listing her on the EU’s Syria restrictive measures, there is no risk in her case that any inherited assets will be used to support the activities of the Syrian regime or will flow into the regime’s possession.

---

(1)  
  JO 2023, L 139, p. 49.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0620 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. JOSEPH DWAYNE MATT,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 17, 2024 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 13 2023

12/13/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0620
<PAGE>
                                                                            10

                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.6




Accountants' Consent

The Board of Directors
AT&T Canada Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form 40-F of AT&T Canada
Inc. of our report dated January 31, 2003, except as to notes 1, 8 and 25, which
are as of February 25, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of AT&T
Canada Inc. ("the Company") as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002.

Our report contains Comments by the Auditors for U.S. Readers on Canada - U.S.
Reporting Differences which states that in the United States, reporting
standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatory paragraph
(following the opinion paragraph) when the financial statements are affected by
conditions and events that cast substantial doubt on the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern, such as those described in note 1 to the
consolidated financial statements. Our report to the shareholders is expressed
in accordance with Canadian reporting standards, which do not permit a reference
to such conditions and events in the auditors' report when these are adequately
disclosed in the financial statements.

In addition, in the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the
addition of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when
there is a change in accounting principles that has a material effect on the
comparability of the Company's financial statements, such as the change
described in note 2(e) to the consolidated financial statements. Our report to
the shareholders is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards,
which do not require a reference to such a change in accounting principles in
the auditors' report when the change is properly accounted for and adequately
disclosed in the financial statements.


/s/  KPMG LLP


Toronto, Canada
January 31, 2003
NEUSOFT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, USA, INC., Plaintiff v. NEUISYS, LLC, Defendant. Neuisys, LLC, Counterclaim-Plaintiff v. Neusoft Medical Systems, USA, Inc., Tom Buse, and Keith Mildenburger, Counterclaim-Defendants. Neuisys, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Neusoft Medical System Company, Ltd., Third-Party Defendant.

No. 288P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Alan W. Duncan, for Neusoft Medical System Company, Ltd.

*434Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Winston-Salem, for Neusoft Medical System Company, Ltd.

L. Cooper Harrell.

Daniel R. Taylor, Jr., Winston-Salem, for Neusoft Medical Systems, USA Inc.

Susan H. Boyles, Winston-Salem, for Neusoft Medical Systems, USA Inc.

J. Dennis Bailey, Winston-Salem, for Buse, Tom, et al.

Joseph T. Carruthers, Winston-Salem, for Buse, Tom, et al.

Greer B. Taylor.

Philip J. Mohr, Winston-Salem, for Neuisys, LLC.

Brent F. Powell, Winston-Salem, for Neuisys, LLC.

Jon Berkelhammer, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.

Kelly Margolis Dagger, Raleigh, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.

Phillip Absolom Harris, Jr., Raleigh, for Neusoft Medical Systems, USA Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 24th of August 2015 by Third Party Plaintiff (Neuisys, LLC) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 24th of August 2015 by Third Party Plaintiff (Neuisys, LLC) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Jemond S. DICKENS.

No. COA 15-182.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Eric Thernell OAKMAN.

No. 411P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Russell J. Hollers, III, Durham, for Oakman.

Chris Sinha, Assistant Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 663 S.E.2d 453.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of September 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 550 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 556
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 550

                          [Report No. 110-256]

 To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District 
                              of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2007

 Mr. Akaka (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Lieberman) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
             on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                            January 8, 2008

  Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 
               2007, by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District 
                              of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT.

    Section 903 of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code is amended 
by striking ``fifty-eight'' and inserting ``61''.
                                                       Calendar No. 556

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 550

                          [Report No. 110-256]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District 
                              of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 8, 2008

                       Reported without amendment
```
# CE2004078EN.01014501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/145 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/145

---

(2004/C 78 E/0150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol regarding entry into force

Subject:

The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force when it has been ratified by not less than 55 parties to the UNFCCC accounting for at least 55 % of the total CO2 emissions of the Annex I countries. At present the Protocol has been accepted by 113 states making up over 80 % of the world's population, but the proportion of emissions accounted for by the Annex I countries which have ratified it stands at only 44,2 % and, even taken together, the remaining Annex I countries (Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Australia, whose combined total is 2,1 %) will not raise the figure above the 55 % threshold unless either Russia (17,4 %) or the United States (36,1 % of the Annex I countries' emissions) can likewise be persuaded to give its support. The US has already publicly distanced itself from the Protocol. Russia thus holds the key.

2

From a climate change perspective the Protocol naturally needs if nothing else to enter into force on schedule. It might in any case be strategically better for the purposes of the negotiations to be conducted with Russia and helpful to all sides if Russia agreed to participate, but as regards entry into force of Protocol this is not absolutely essential.

Has the Commission thought of taking immediate steps in order to amend Article 25(1) of the Protocol in accordance with the procedure under Article 20 with a view to replacing the requisite 55 % with, say, just 45 % of the Annex I countries' emissions, thus ensuring that, whatever happens, the Protocol can enter into force?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

(23 October 2003)

Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol is not feasible from a legal point of view. Article 20 of the Kyoto Protocol defines the procedure that has to be followed for amendments to the Protocol itself. As the responsibility for adoption of any amendments lies with the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, this procedure is applicable only once the Kyoto Protocol has entered into force. The conditions in Article 25(1) also underline the need to address the global problem of climate change by international action involving broad participation.

---
# CE2004078EN.01076002.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/760 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/760

---

(2004/C 78 E/0808)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2875/03

by Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 September 2003)

Subject:   Situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in Malta

Subject:

A number of reports from reliable sources, such as the Maltese Jesuit Refugee Service, suggest that asylum-seekers in Malta are being detained in deplorable, if not wretched, conditions for periods of up to 18 months.

According to official Maltese sources, about 400 people, most of them asylum-seekers, are incarcerated solely because they entered Maltese territory illegally. They are also being held without being given any information on the likely outcome of their cases.

Is the Council aware of the very worrying situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in Malta?

Does the Council recognise that such a situation is in breach of international law, and in particular the European Human Rights Convention and the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees?

Now that there are only a few months to go before Malta joins the European Union, what does the Council intend to do to ensure that Malta complies with its international obligations and the existing body of Union legislation in this sphere?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The Council is aware of the limited reception capacity for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers in Malta, which has led to overcrowding. The Council underlines, however, that although a suitable solution has yet to be found, the Maltese authorities are making efforts to ensure that reception conditions for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers are as decent as circumstances allow, given the sheer pressure of numbers. In this context, the conditions under which asylum-seekers are held must be evaluated in close connection with Malta's real (and limited) reception ability.

It should be noted, however, that the Council will monitor closely the situation regarding the reception conditions for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers in Malta, as it is doing for all the acceding States, in order to ensure that the requirements of the acquis are being met. This monitoring will continue until the day of accession. Furthermore, the situation in reception centres is also expected to be covered in the Commission's comprehensive monitoring reports on each acceding State's preparations for accession to be presented to the Council on 5 November 2003.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18408]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Notice of a Deviation; Motor Vehicle Management

AGENCY:  Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION:  Notice of a deviation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that the General Services Administration 
(GSA), Office of Governmentwide Policy (M), is granting a deviation 
from section 102-34.335 of the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) (41 
CFR 102-34.335) to all agencies whose purchase of gasoline for motor 
vehicles has been impacted by Hurricane Katrina. This deviation will 
allow Federal agencies to purchase premium gasoline for government 
owned and leased vehicles when lower grade gasoline is not available. 
This deviation can be found at www.gsa.gov/vehiclepolicy and clicking 
on ``Deviation from 41 CFR 102-34.335''.

DATES:  The deviation announced in this notice is effective September 
8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For clarification of content, contact 
General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, 
Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management, at (202) 501-
1777 and cite the deviation regarding motor vehicle management dated 
September 8, 2005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Federal Management Regulation (FMR) section 102-34.335 (41 CFR 102-
34.335) prohibits the use of premium grade gasoline in any motor 
vehicle owned or leased by the Government unless the motor vehicle 
specifically requires premium grade gasoline. This section states that 
drivers are to use the grade (octane rating) of gasoline recommended by 
the motor vehicle manufacturer when fueling motor vehicles owned or 
leased by the Government.
    As a result of the catastrophic destruction caused by Hurricane 
Katrina, agencies have reported that their vehicles operators are 
unable to purchase lower octane gasoline for their vehicles to complete 
their missions. In many areas, agencies have only been able to procure 
premium gasoline for use in their motor vehicles. The original intent 
of section 102-34.335 was to reduce fuel costs and eliminate the 
unnecessary use of premium gasoline in vehicles capable of being 
operated on lower grade gasoline.

B. Procedures

    This deviation is located on the Internet at www.gsa.gov/vehiclepolicy vehiclepolicy and clicking on ``Deviation from 41 CFR 102-34.335''.

    Dated: September 12, 2005.
Tom Horan,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 05-18408 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-S
NUMBER 13-08-00444-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

JOHNNIE HEINAMAN, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

_____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 197th District Court

of Willacy County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Johnnie Heinaman, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal in the

foregoing cause. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby
2

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed

the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our

mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 26th day of August, 2008.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,482,872
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         275,962
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,939,419
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 30,835,141
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      30,869,516
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        30,407,833
<LOANS>                                    144,701,746
<ALLOWANCE>                                    380,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             219,462,184
<DEPOSITS>                                 171,466,629
<SHORT-TERM>                                16,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,270,776
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,544
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,207,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             219,462,184
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             10,426,017
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,648,326
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               294,470
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            15,368,813
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,467,523
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,371,344
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,997,469
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   32,605
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,725,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,468,680
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     901,480
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   901,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.47
<LOANS-NON>                                    288,786
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               438,500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   91,105
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              380,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        380,000
        

</TABLE>