alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.51 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
STATE OF MICHIGAN

SUPREME COURT

May 29, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

ANTHONY MICHAEL FLINT,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 151189

COA: 321213

Wayne CC: 94-000892-FC

_________________________________________/

Statement of Justice Markman Denying Defendant-Appellant’s Motion to Disqualify

MARKMAN, J. Defendant has filed a motion to disqualify because I was a member of the 

Court of Appeals panel that decided his direct appeal in 1996. People v Flint, unpublished 

opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 8, 1996 (Docket No. 185201). I 

respectfully deny this motion. To begin with, none of the grounds for disqualification set forth in 

MCR 2.003(C) require my disqualification and I can think of no other grounds that would 

require this. I am not biased for or against any of the parties or attorneys and I have no personal 

knowledge of any disputed evidence. Moreover, I do not believe my participation will create 

any appearance of impropriety. My participation in defendant’s direct appeal occurred nearly 19 

years ago and involved an entirely different issue than that now presented. The issues then 

pertained to whether prosecutor had presented sufficient evidence of defendant’s intent to sustain 

his conviction of felony murder and whether the trial court had properly instructed the jury 
regarding that intent. The issue now, in defendant’s fourth motion for relief from judgment, 

pertains to whether alleged newly-discovered evidence was withheld by the prosecutor. It is an 

entirely new issue and has in no way been the subject of prejudgment.
#### Albert TAKOU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2212.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 21, 2005.

Decided April 7, 2005.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, Noto & Oswald, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Albert Takou, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Takou challenges the immigration judge’s determination he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude Takou fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Takou’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum—even though the facts that must be proved are the same—an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Takou fails to show he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Because Takou did not specifically challenge on appeal to the Board the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, review of that claim is waived. *Gonahasa v. INS,*181 F.3d 538, 544 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We grant the Government’s motion to strike pages 264-296 of Takou’s brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
Motion Denied; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 2, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00078-CV

LINDA BRUEGGEBORS, Appellant

V.

KINGWOOD SENIOR VILLAGE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law #4

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-25,852

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed January 9, 2012. The clerk’s record was 

filed March 21, 2012. No reporter’s record was filed. 

Appellant’s brief was originally due May 14, 2012. We granted three extensions 

of time to file appellant’s brief until August 13, 2012. No brief was filed. On August 

14, 2012, appellant filed a further request for extension of time to file her brief. On 

August 23, 2012, the request was denied and appellant was ordered to file a brief with the 

clerk of this court within thirty (30) days. Appellant was informed that if she did not
2

timely file the brief as ordered, the court would dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

On September 24, 2012, appellant filed another request to extend time to file her 

brief. Appellant’s motion is denied. 

The appeal is ordered dismissed for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
Update Regarding Secretary Walsh’s

Confirmation Vo

Dear All,

Thank you for your continued hard work and service.

Today, March 22nd, the Senate voted to confirm Marty Walsh as the next U.S. Secretary of Labor, and I can think of no

one more ready, nor more suited, for the job.

While I anticipate that many of you may be excited to meet Secretary Walsh once sworn-in, it is of the utmost importance

that we all strictly adhere to the DOL COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan. Following guidance from the White House and

public health experts, we are maintaining the Department’s maximum telework posture. At this time, all DOL employees

who are telework eligible are expected to telework, unless approved by a supervisor to perform onsite work essential for

business needs. Therefore, no additional staff should be coming into the Frances Perkins Building and other DOL work

places, unless it was previously approved by your supervisor as essential for business needs. When performing

approved onsite work, employees and contractors must continue to follow all DOL, CDC, and OSHA guidance, such as

wearing masks and maintaining physical distancing. The health and safety or employees and contractors in the

workplace is a top priority, and part of our shared responsibility.

Upon being sworn-in, Secretary Walsh will spend his first few days listening, learning, and leading. He will be speaking

with America’s front-line workers, labor organizations, and industry leaders from across the country. He is also eager to

hear from you all and share his vision for the DOL, so please be on the lookout for an email from the Secretary himself

after his official swearing-in.

Sincerely,

Dan Koh

DOL Chief of Staff

Last updated: March 22, 2021

LABORNET
Case 1:06-cv-14952-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

 

I, Emanuel N. Hilario, Chief FinancialOfficer, in connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmick’sSeafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2005 (the “Report”),hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934  and

2.                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants,Inc.

 

 
| /s/ EMANUEL N. HILARIO  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Emanuel N. Hilario      |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: August 8, 2005

 

 

----
#### BURCL v. HOSPITAL

No. 305 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 127

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 August 1980.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 033-65113, 333-84848,
333-114473 and 333-152296) on Forms S-8 of Cache, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements
and consolidated financial statement schedule of Cache, Inc. and subsidiaries, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cache, Inc. and subsidiaries for the
year ended December 29, 2007.

/s/
25 MAD LIQUIDATION CPA, P.C.

(formerly
known as Mahoney Cohen & Company, CPA, P.C.)

New
York, New York
March 19, 2010

---



QuickLinks
#### ALPAR v. WEYERHAEUSER CO.

No. 13 PC.

Case below: 20 N.C. App. 340.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 March 1974.
SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED
Exhibit 32.2


            Section 1350 Certification of Principal Financial Officer


The undersigned, Executive Vice President, Finance and Secretary, of Jaco
Electronics, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Quarterly
Report") accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods presented as required by such
report. The foregoing certification is based upon, among other things, my
responsibilities as principal financial officer of the Company, my own due
diligence and representations made by certain other members of the Company's
senior management.


Date:  November 14, 2005

                            /s/ Jeffrey D. Gash
                            --------------------------------------------------
                            Jeffrey D. Gash
                            Executive Vice President, Finance and Secretary
                            (Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2273]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 09/79-0432]


Telesoft Partners II SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Telesoft Partners II SBIC, L.P., 1450 
Fashion Island Blvd., Suite 610, San Mateo, CA 94404, a Federal 
Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(``the Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has 
sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Telesoft Partners II SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt 
security financing to Aarohi Communications, Inc. The financing is 
contemplated for working capital and general corporate purposes.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Telesoft Partners II QP, L.P., Telesoft 
Partners II, L.P. and Telesoft NP Employee Fund, LLC, all Associates of 
Telesoft Partners II SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of Aarohi 
Communications, Inc.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: January 6, 2005.
Jaime Guzman-Fournier,
Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 05-2273 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5274 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5274

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the requirements for 
 verifying a small business concern owned and controlled by a veteran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2010

  Mr. Roskam introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the requirements for 
 verifying a small business concern owned and controlled by a veteran.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR VERIFYING SMALL BUSINESS 
              CONCERN OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY A VETERAN.

    Subsection (f) of section 8127 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(6)'' and inserting 
        ``(7)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(7) In determining eligibility for inclusion in the database, the 
Secretary may not consider the following:
            ``(A) The work schedule of the veteran owner of a small 
        business concern.
            ``(B) Whether the small business concern sells or otherwise 
        conducts business with respect to more than one product 
        line.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### WRIGHT v. HOLT

No. 161 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 661.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1973.
July 14, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KINGS HIGH RANCH, L.L.C., Appellant

NO. 14-15-00514-CV V.

ULTIMATE KOBE BEEF, L.L.C., ALLISON MAE GODWIN AND BRUCE R. 

HEMMINGSEN, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal from 

the judgment signed by the court below on October 3, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Order entered November 30, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01545-CV

IN THE MATTER OF DEMPSTER A. ROSS

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-02315-2019

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 23, 2020 third motion for 

extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief 

be filed no later than January 8, 2021. As the brief was first due June 19, 2020, we 

caution appellant that failure to file the brief may result in dismissal of the appeal 

without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (11,223)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,137
<PP&E>                                       2,510,896
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,360,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          493,088
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       799,187
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,139,138)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,658
<SALES>                                        108,482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,150
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               201,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (166,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (166,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (166,619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
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

###### Administration on Aging

# AGENCY:

Administration on Aging, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of conference call.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given that the Policy Committee of the 2005 White House Conference on Aging (WHCoA) will have a conference call to finalize the resolutions and other items related to the 2005 WHCoA. The conference call will be open to the public to listen, with call-ins limited to the number of telephone lines available. Individuals who plan to call in and need special assistance, such as TTY, should inform the contact person listed below in advance of the conference call. This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the conference call due to scheduling problems.

# DATES:

The conference call will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 12 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

# ADDRESSES:

The conference call may be accessed by dialing, U.S. toll-free,1-800-857-0419, passcode: 8932323, on the date and time indicated above.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Kim Butcher, (301) 443-2887, or e-mail at                         *Kim.Butcher@whcoa.gov.*                         Registration is not required. Call in is on a first come, first-served basis.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Pursuant to the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-501, November 2000), the Policy Committee will have a meeting by conference call to finalize on the resolutions that will be mailed to the delegates for review prior to the WHCoA that is scheduled from December 11 to 14, 2005. The public is invited to listen by dialing the telephone number and using the passcode listed above under the                     **ADDRESSES**                     section.                

Dated: November 14, 2005.

Edwin L. Walker,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs.

[FR Doc. 05-22810 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4154-01-P