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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3147 PAMELA D. DINKLER,

Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

CH0831070409-1-1. ON MOTION Before GAJARSA, FRIEDMAN, and LINN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Pamela D. Dinkier moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submits correspondence requesting that the court accept her untimely petition for review. The court considers whether the petition should be dismissed. On April 30, 2008, the Merit Systems Profection Board issued a final decision in Dinkier v. Office of Pers. Mqmt., No. CH-0831-07-0409-1-1, specifying that its decision was final and that any petition for review must be received by this court within 60 calendar days of receipt of the Board's decision. The Board's records reflect thatDinkier received the Board's decision on May 9, 2008. The court received Dinkler's

petition for review 62 days later, on July 10, 2008.* A petition for review of a Board decision must be filed within 60 days of receipt of the decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). The 60-day filing period is "statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional." Monzo v. Dept. of Transp. 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Oia v. Department of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[c]ompliance with the filing deadline of 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction"). Because Dinkler's petition for review was received by this court two days late, this court must dismiss Dinkler's petition as untimely. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for review is dismissed. All pending motions are moot. FOR THE COURT 

# MAY - 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan

.Horbaly Clerk

cc: Pamela D. Dinkier Richard P. Schroeder, Esq. s17 MAY -5 2009 JAN HUizetur CLERK The petition for review listed the docket number for an earlier petition of Dinkler's and was originally filed under that number. However, upon review of the file, the court determined that Dinkler's July 10, 2008 submission was a new petition for review and docketed it as 2009-3147.
2009-3147 2
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Turran PHILLIPS, Defendant.

No. COA16-162

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 3, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00204

- CR

Robert RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 0979

- CR

- A

Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee’s motion for extension of time to file their brief is granted. Time is extended to

December 3, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4380 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4380

             To prohibit gun confiscation and registration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2014

 Mr. Stockman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To prohibit gun confiscation and registration.

    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 ``Gun Confiscation and Registration 
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING GUN CONFISCATION AND REGISTRATION.

    None of the funds made available through the NICS Improvement 
Amendments Act of 2007 or the Community Oriented Policing Services 
[COPS] Program shall be provided to any jurisdiction which:
     (a) maintains a registry of gun ownership; or
    (b) conducts a program of gun confiscation directed at any firearm 
which is not prohibited by Federal law or any group of persons who are 
not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law.
                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ARCHON CORPORATION; PAUL W. LOWDEN; AND SUZANNE LOWDEN, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and DAN RAIDER, AN INDIVIDUAL ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Real 

### Party in Interest. No. 68995


# FILED
MAR 1 8 2016

TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERer PREME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK



### ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, OR CERTIORARI This original petition for a writ of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a contract action. Having considered the petition, answer, reply and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings, when the district court has yet to definitively rule upon the jurisdiction, limitations, repose, and tolling issues. 

### Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344- 45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (explaining that this court generally will intervene at the motion to dismiss stage only when no factual disputes exist and clear authority requires dismissal); 

### Smith v. Eighth Judicial

(0) 1947A C7ifroJ.

Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991); Zarnarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'


# / 

# SA ,J. Hardesty

Saitta J.

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Dickinson Wright PLLC Goren, Goren & Harris, P.C. Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons Eighth District Court Clerk

"We vacate our December 31, 2015, stay in this matter.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A en
# Official Journal L 300/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 300 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6127 November 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 300

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6127 November 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1847 of 26 November 2018 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1848 of 26 November 2018 on the reimbursement, in accordance with Article 26(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of the appropriations carried over from financial year 2018 | 4 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1849 of 23 November 2018 amending Implementing Decision 2014/190/EU as regards the annual breakdown of the resources from the specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative by Member State
  (notified under document C(2018) 7100) | 7 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1847 of 26 November 2018 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (
  1
  )

1

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1848 of 26 November 2018 on the reimbursement, in accordance with Article 26(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of the appropriations carried over from financial year 2018

4

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1849 of 23 November 2018 amending Implementing Decision 2014/190/EU as regards the annual breakdown of the resources from the specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative by Member State
  (notified under document C(2018) 7100)

(notified under document C(2018) 7100)

7

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4389 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4389

  To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting a work 
authorization to an alien found to have been unlawfully present in the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2014

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting a work 
authorization to an alien found to have been unlawfully present in the 
                             United States.

    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 ``Equal Protection for American 
Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN WORK AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Effective beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security is prohibited from granting a work 
authorization to an alien who has been finally determined, in a valid 
immigration proceeding during which due process was afforded, to have 
been at any time unlawfully present in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         EXCHANGE ACT RULE 15D-14(B) AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Radial Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
Leigh Lyons, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

     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 Radial Energy,
Inc. and will be retained by Radial Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


By:            /s/ G. LEIGH LYONS
               __________________________
Name:          G. Leigh Lyons
Title:         Chief Executive Officer

Date:          February 20, 2007
QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED, et al. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE

315PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 6, 2017

James E. Scarbrough, James R. DeMay, Attorneys at Law, Concord, John F. Scarborough, Madeline Trilling, Attorneys at Law, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Carthage.

Stephen D. Feldman, Paul M. Cox, Attorneys at Law, Raleigh, Steven A. Scoggan, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, F. Paul Calamita, III, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Water Quality Association and Seven Municipalities.

J. Daniel Bishop, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Joseph W. Moss, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Union County.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of September 2017 by Plaintiffs for Leave to File Reply to Amicus Curiae Brief of Union County:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of September 2017."
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, PETER J. RICE, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MRO Software, Inc., a
Massachusetts Corporation;

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 such statements 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 the registrant 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, or caused 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 end of 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 fiscal quarter 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 internal control 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 over financial 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 significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: December 14, 2004

By: /s/ Peter J. Rice
---------------------------------
Peter J. Rice
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,987
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,317
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,550
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 15,402
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,402
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        15,402
<LOANS>                                    230,914
<ALLOWANCE>                                 (3,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             327,728
<DEPOSITS>                                 192,966
<SHORT-TERM>                                30,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,916
<LONG-TERM>                                 54,752
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        26
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             327,728
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             20,411
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,967
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               478
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            25,856
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          12,435
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,557
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        9,864
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 (363)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             307
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              9,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,159
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   4,159
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                2.91
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,597
<LOANS-PAST>                                 4,541
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,206
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            (3,922)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  396
<RECOVERIES>                                   (37)
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           (3,200)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        (3,200)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

PHILLIP DIXON, Jr., a.k.a. Cheddar,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 30139

D.C. No. 3:13

- cr

- 00042

- TMB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN

, TALLMAN

, and N

. R. SMITH , Circuit Judges.

Phil l ip Dixon , Jr., appeals the district court’ s orde r denying in part his

motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g)

. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

Dixon claims that the district court erred by denying his motion for the

* 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

SEP 29 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 30139

return of $ 8,530

. T he district court appears to have den ied Dixon’s motion, at least

in part, because it presumed that this $8,530 was part of the $25,000 that Dixon

forfeited under the criminal judgment. In fact, the $8,530 that Dixon sought to

have returned was admi nistra tively forfeited prior to his criminal proceedings.

Nonetheless , the district d id not err by d enying Dixon’s motion because the

government has obtained title to the $8,530 and, therefore, Dixon has no claim to

it. S ee Omidi v. United States , 851 F.3d 859, 861

- 62 (9th Cir. 2017) (outlining the

administrative forfeiture process). To the extent that Dixon claims that the

government failed to provide him with proper notice of the administrative

forfeiture proceedings or raises any other challenges to the administrative

forfeiture pr oceedings that he did not raise below

, w e decline to consider th ese

claims

. See United States v. Gilbert , 807 F.3d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015) ( “As a

general rule, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon

below.” (internal quotations omitted)).

AFFIRMED

.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1591-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Maine (FEMA-1591-DR), dated June 29, 2005, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

September 23, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Maine is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 29, 2005: York County for Public Assistance. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 05-19631 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P