alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 1 0 6 9 3 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,
P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
.
M E L V I N W I A N D ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 3 : 0 7

- C R

- 3 5 2

- 1

B e f o r e J O L L Y , W I E N E R , a n d E L R O D , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t M e l v i n W i a n d h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n s e e k i n g l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w t o g e t h e r w i t h a s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f i n

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d W i a n d h a s f i l e d

a r e s p o n s e
. T h e r e c o r d i s i n s u f f i c i e n t l y d e v e l o p e d t o a l l o w c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t t h i s
t i m e o f W i a n d ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h e r e c e i v e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l ;

s u c h a s s e r t i o n s g e n e r a l l y “ c a n n o t b e r e s o l v e d o n d i r e c t a p p e a l w h e n [ t h e y h a v e ]

n o t b e e n r a i s e d b e f

o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i n c e n o o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t e d t o d e v e l o p U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 16 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-10693 Document: 00511143928 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2010N o
. 0 9

- 1 0 6 9 3

t h e r e c o r d o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s
. ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. C a n t w e l l , 4 7 0 F

. 3 d
1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 1 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 6 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’s b r i e f , a n d W i a n d ’ s r e s p o n s e d i s c l o s e s

n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , h i s c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o

w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , h i s c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d h i s a p p e a l i s D I S M I S S E D

. 1

S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. 1

2 Case: 09-10693 Document: 00511143928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2010
EXHIBIT 10.77


                           U.S. HELICOPTER CORPORATION

         The undersigned hereby agrees that for a period commencing on the date
hereof and expiring on May 10, 2007 (the "LOCK-UP PERIOD"), he, she or it will
not, directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of the Investor,
issue, offer, agree or offer to sell, sell, grant an option for the purchase or
sale of, transfer, pledge, assign, hypothecate, distribute or otherwise encumber
or dispose of except pursuant to Rule 144 of the General Rules and Regulations
under the Securities Act of 1933 or in private resales, any securities of U.S.
Helicopter Corporation (the "COMPANY"), including common stock or options,
rights, warrants or other securities underlying, convertible into, exchangeable
or exercisable for or evidencing any right to purchase or subscribe for any
common stock (whether or not beneficially owned by the undersigned), or any
beneficial interest therein (collectively, the "SECURITIES").

         In order to enable the aforesaid covenants to be enforced, the
undersigned hereby consents to the placing of legends and/or stop-transfer
orders with the transfer agent of the Company's securities with respect to any
of the Securities registered in the name of the undersigned or beneficially
owned by the undersigned, and the undersigned hereby confirms the undersigned's
investment in the Company.

Dated:   November 10, 2006

                                                 Signature


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




                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Print Social Security Number
                                                 or Taxpayer I.D. Number
Exhibit 32





                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly report of Petramerica Oil, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earnest
Mathis, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                            /s/ Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                            -----------------------
                                            Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                            Chief Executive Officer, President
                                            and Chief Financial Officer
                                            May 8, 2006
```

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 19811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9910]

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

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

TIME AND DATE: 3:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 5, 1995.

PLACE: Board Conference Room, Eleventh Floor, 1099 Fourteenth St., 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570.

STATUS: Closed to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 
552b(c)(2) (internal personnel rules and practices); (c)(6) (personal 
information where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy) and (9)(B) (disclosure would 
significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed Agency Action).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Personnel Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Joseph E. Moore, Acting Executive 
Secretary, Washington, D.C. 20570, Telephone: (202) 273-1940.

    Dated, Washington, D.C., April 17, 1995.

    By direction of the Board:
Joseph E. Moore,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9910 Filed 4-18-95; 12:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 7540-01-M
```
File name: 8413.91.90.50 FluiDyneFP

Request for Exclusion of a particular product from determination of action pursuant to Section 301. 

Docket number USTR-2018-0025-0001.

Request is for subheading category 8413.91.90.50 which is Pumps for liquids, Parts of pumps, Other. Of 

hydraulic fluid power pumps.

Product description is parts of hydraulic fluid power pumps.

Value and Quantity of Chinese-origin product purchased in each of the last three years:

2016 $629,926 12,512 pcs

2017 $554,778 34,416 pcs

2018 $715,394 27,857 pcs as of 9/30/2018

These pump parts are available in other countries including the United States, India, Thailand, France, 

and Germany amongst others. But none of these other countries has the combination of value pricing 

and quality as our vendors in China. There is also an significant issue of parts from one manufacturer not 

fully compatible with pumps from another manufacturer. In the USA these are available at a significantly 

higher cost and lead times up to several months. 

Since we keep stock of common pumps on the shelf, much of our sales are one or two pumps at a time 

to small end users such as farmers or equipment repair shops that cannot wait 30 plus weeks for a large 

US pump manufacturer that also comes at a significant price increase that is a burden on the end user.

We use China vendors to private label a less expensive but quality product and reconfigure them to ship 

the next day to our customers. Our parts are used for converting pumps in stock to the variation the 

customer needs. This allows us to fill a gap that the large original equipment manufacturers are not 

interested in filling and requires parts and pumps that have good quality.

The USTR tariff represents a significant and undue hardship on our company and to most of our end 

customers if we pass this cost on to them.

The China vendors we use are not strategically important to the Chinese industrial program of "Made in 

China 2025." The pumps use the same technology that was created back in the 1960's and 1970's. The 

China vendors we purchase from use a mix of old and new standard machining centers developed 10 

and 20 years ago without any advanced high end digital controls or robotics. There are no IPR or 

Intellectual Property Rights as the design patents have long ago expired.

I Douglas K Eriksen certify that the information provided in the above statements is complete and 

correct to the best of my knowledge.

Douglas K. Eriksen

General Manager - FluiDyne Fluid Power
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5455 

To clarify certain regulations to allow for the installation of pulsating light 

systems for high-mounted stop lamps, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. WEBSTER of Florida (for himself and Mr. TRONE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify certain regulations to allow for the installation 

of pulsating light systems for high-mounted stop lamps, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Collision Avoidance 

5 Systems Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAR-END COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS. 

7 (a) CLARIFICATION ON PULSATING LIGHT SYS8 TEMS.—Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5455 IH

1 Standard 108 shall be deemed to allow for the use of pul2 sating light system on vehicles covered by such Standard. 

3 (b) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor5 tation shall issue such regulations as are necessary to up6 date Standard 108 to— 

7 (1) include performance-based standards for 

8 pulsating light systems; and 

9 (2) allow for the use on motor vehicles of such 

10 systems. 

11 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

12 (1) PULSATING LIGHT SYSTEM.—The term 

13 ‘‘pulsating light system’’ means a system for a high14 mounted stop lamp in which— 

15 (A) when the brake of the vehicle is ap16 plied, the lamp pulses rapidly no more than 4 

17 times and for no more than 1.2 seconds, after 

18 which such lamp converts to a continuous light 

19 as a normal stop lamp until the time such 

20 brake is released; and 

21 (B) the pulses described in subparagraph 

22 (A) may not repeat upon a subsequent applica23 tion of the brake of the vehicle for a lock-out 

24 period of at least 5 seconds after the release of 

25 the brake described in subparagraph (A). 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5455 IH

1 (2) STANDARD 108.—The term ‘‘Standard 108’’ 

2 means Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Num3 ber 108, contained in section 571.108 of title 49, 

4 Code of Federal Regulations. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997  
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996  
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996  
<CASH>                                          25,047  
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,738  
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0  
<INVENTORY>                                          0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,992  
<PP&E>                                           2,727  
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,154)  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,031  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,865  
<BONDS>                                              0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                            10  
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,321  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,031  
<SALES>                                         11,465  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,465  
<CGS>                                            5,001  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,001  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,480  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 125  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    859  
<INCOME-TAX>                                       206  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                653  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                       653  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15  
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL MALONDA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73143

Agency No. A078-442-402

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Malonda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is

FILED

JUN 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73143

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s

factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We

deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Malonda established

extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse his untimely asylum application. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, Malonda’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Malonda failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in

Indonesia by or with the acquiescence of the government. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d

at 1068.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Malonda experienced harms

in Indonesia that rise to the level of past persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at

1059-60 (being beaten, robbed, and accosted by a threatening mob did not compel

a past persecution finding). However, in analyzing Malonda’s fear of future

persecution, the agency did not apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in

Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). In light of this and our

intervening decisions in Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010), and

Wakkary, we remand for the agency to assess Malonda’s withholding of removal
3 08-73143

claim under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura,

537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,253
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                        55
<INVENTORY>                                     37,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           3,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,695
<SALES>                                         69,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,798
<CGS>                                           59,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,865
<INCOME-TAX>                                       709
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,156
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (145)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,011
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .95
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Michael T. WALSH, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 69584.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 30, 1996.

Blake R. Fischer, Asst. Pros. Atty., Franklin County, Union, for appellant.

Isidore Ireland Lamke, Washington, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Missouri appeals the dismissal of the driving while intoxicated charge against defendant Michael T. Walsh. The trial court found the prosecution of the charge violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because defendant previously had his license administratively suspended.

This case is controlled by the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent decision in *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758 (Mo.banc 1996). There, the court held a charge of driving while intoxicated is not barred by Double Jeopardy because the defendant’s license had been administratively suspended. Thus, it *146reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the charge against the defendant.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
#### Brice R. SENSENICH, by Next Friend Rodney KRAWL, Respondent, v. Stacy G. SENSENICH, by Next Friend Sherry SENSENICH, Appellant.

No. WD 50956.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 13, 1996.

George W. Richardson, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Terry Tschannen, Brookfield, for Respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMITH, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

*ORDER*

Appeal from judgment awarding custody of minor child to respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8796]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-423-002]


Texas Gas Transmission Corp.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

April 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 30, 1995, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing changes to its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, and Original Volume No. 2.

    Texas Gas states that this motion rate-compliance filing is being 
made to place the tariff sheets listed below into effect on April 1, 
1995, in compliance with the Commission's Order issued October 28, 
1994, in Docket No. RP94-423 at 69 FERC 61,109 (1994).

First Revised Volume No. 1

Third Revised Sheet No. 1
First Revised Sheet No. 9
Substitute Eighth Revised Sheet No. 10
Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 11
Substitute Original Sheet No. 11A
Substitute Tenth Revised Sheet No. 12
Second Revised Sheet No. 12A
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 13
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 15
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 16
Second Revised Sheet No. 17
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 18
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 122
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 230
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 231

Original Volume No. 2

Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 82
Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 547
Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 982
Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 1005
Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 1085

    Texas Gas requests an effective date of April 1, 1995, for the 
proposed tariff sheets.
    Texas Gas further states that it has served copies of this filing 
upon the company's jurisdictional customers, interested state 
commissions, and all parties appearing on the official restricted 
service list in Docket No. RP94-423.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 385.211 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All 
such protests should be filed on or before April 12, 1995. Protests may 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8796 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Raymond I. HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 40226.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Nancy A. McKerrow, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, J., Presiding, and TURNAGE and COVINGTON, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).