alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10985]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[NV-06-1990-10]


Environmental Statements; Mule Canyon Gold Mine, NV

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, notice is given that the Battle Mountain District 
of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared, by third party 
contractor, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Santa Fe Pacific 
Gold Corporation's Mule Canyon Mine. This document is available for 
public review for a 45 day period.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement must be postmarked by July 10, 1996.
    Public meeting to receive oral and written comments has been 
scheduled for date, time, and place listed below.
    <bullet> June 5, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., at the Battle Mountain District 
Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada.
    <bullet> A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be 
obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain District 
Office, ATTN: Christopher Stubbs, Project Manager, P.O. Box 1420, 
Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820.
    <bullet> The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for 
inspection at the following additional locations: Bureau of Land 
Management, Nevada State Office, 850 Harvard Way, Reno, Nevada: Lander 
County Library, Battle Mountain, Nevada: and the University of Nevada 
Library in Reno, Nevada.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Stubbs, Project Manager at 
the above Battle Mountain District Address or telephone (702) 635-4000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could result from 
construction and operation of the Mule Canyon Gold Mine. Alternatives 
analyzed include the Proposed Action, No Action Alternative, East 
Access Alternative, and the Overburden and Interburden Disposal Area 
Configuration Alternative. The project would involve construction and 
operation of a new mine at Mule Canyon with open pits, overburden and 
interburden ore stockpiles, process facilities, tailings storage 
facilities, heap leach pads, and related support and ancillary 
facilities.

    Dated: April 29, 1996.
Gerald M. Smith,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 96-10985 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASON D. CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

NORM KRAMER, Ex

- Director of Coalinga State Hospital; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 15430

D.C. No. 1:15

- cv

- 01362

- AWI

- MJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019 **

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

California civil detainee Cason D. Cunnin g ham appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal

and state law claims . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)

* 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 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); May v. Baldwin , 109 F.3d 557,

560

- 61 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cunningham’s Fourteenth Amendment

conditions

- of

- confinement claim because it would not have been clear to every

reasonable official that detaining Cunnin g ham in the Central Valley, where Valley

Fever was endemic, was unlawful under the c ircumstances. See Ashcroft v. al

Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two

- part test for qualified immunity) ;

Hines v. Youseff

, 914 F.3d 1218, 12 29

- 30 (9th Cir. 2019) ( existing Valley Fever

cases did not clearly establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to

Valley Fever spores” )

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. Se e Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

AFFIRMED.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5179 

AN ACT 

To require the maintenance of the country of origin markings 

for imported goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, 

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, 
2 

•HR 5179 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Anti-BDS Labeling 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CONTINUATION IN EFFECT OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN 

5 MARKING POLICY FOR IMPORTED GOODS 

6 PRODUCED IN THE WEST BANK OR GAZA. 

7 The policy of the Government of the United States 

8 with respect to country of origin marking of imported 

9 goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, notice of which 

10 was published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 

11 the Federal Register on December 23, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 

12 83984), shall remain in effect until repealed by an Act 

13 of Congress. 

14 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO RESCIND OR 

15 CHANGE THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING 

16 POLICY FOR IMPORTED GOODS PRODUCED 

17 IN THE WEST BANK OR GAZA. 

18 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of 

19 the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 

20 available for the Department of State or U.S. Customs 

21 and Border Protection on or after the date of the enact22 ment of this Act may be obligated or expended to prepare 

23 or promulgate any policy; guidance; regulation; notice; or 

24 Executive order or to otherwise implement, administer, or 

25 enforce any policy that rescinds or changes the policy of 

26 the Government of the United States with respect to coun-
3 

•HR 5179 EH

1 try of origin marking of imported goods produced in the 

2 West Bank or Gaza, notice of which was published by U.S. 

3 Customs and Border Protection in the Federal Register 

4 on December 23, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 83984). 

Passed the House of Representatives September 18, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5179 

AN ACT 

To require the maintenance of the country of origin 

West Bank or Gaza, and for other purposes. markings for imported goods produced in the
#### Maria O. Perez, Appellant, v Wegman Companies, Inc., Respondent.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and plaintiff’s cross motion granted. Memorandum: The court erred in refusing to compel defendant to accept service of plaintiff’s amended complaint. The court had issued an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) with respect to plaintiff’s first two causes of action, but the order provided that "defendant’s motion relative to the third and fourth causes of action of the complaint is held in abeyance until such time as disclosure proceedings have been conducted and plaintiff submits amended pleadings, without prejudice to the defendant to make proper motions related thereto.” As long as defendant’s motion to dismiss was pending, plaintiff could amend her complaint as of right pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a) and 3211 (f) *(see, Sholom & Zuckerbrot Realty Corp. v Coldwell Banker Commercial Group,*138 Misc 2d 799; *Taylor v Haddad Corp.,*118 Misc 2d 253, 255-256; *Lipary v Posner,*96 Misc 2d 578; Siegel, 1988 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, 1990 Supp Pamph, CPLR C3211:65, at 8). Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s application was not properly before the trial court is unpreserved. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—dismiss causes of action.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Law-ton and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32
                                                     Section 1350 Certifications

                         STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      The undersigned are the Chief  Executive  Officer and Acting  Treasurer or
Principal  Accounting Officer of WinWin Gaming,  Inc. This Certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002. This  Certification
accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of WinWin Gaming, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2003.

      The undersigned  certifies that such 10-KSB Report fully complies with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of WinWin
Gaming, Inc. as of December 31, 2003.

This Certification is executed as of April 13, 2004.



By:    /s/Patrick Rogers
 -----------------------------------------
Name:  Patrick Rogers
Title: Chairman, CEO and President
(Principal Executive Officer)




By:    /s/Monica Soares
 -----------------------------------------
Name: Monica Soares
Title: Acting Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Accounting Officer)
















A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to WinWin Gaming,  Inc. and will be retained by WinWin Gaming, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19324-19325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10799]



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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical System; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and 
Mechanical Systems (#1205).
    Date and Time: May 24, 1996, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Place: Rooms 530 and 580, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: John B. Scalzi, Program Director Division of 
Civil and Mechanical Systems, Room 545, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-
1360.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate ARI Equipment and Instrumentation 
Program proposals as part of the selection process for awards.

[[Page 19325]]

    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 26, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-10799 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-150850, No. 333-145436, No. 333-136505, No. 333-124387, No. 333-114279, No. 333-105422, No. 333-85832, No. 333-55256, and No. 333-46894) of STEC, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2009 relating to the
financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
|                              
|Orange County, California     
|March 12, 2009
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50198 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,
Plaintiff

− Appellee
,

v ersus
QUIRINO PEREZ

- MARTINEZ
,
Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 2:16

- CR

- 305

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Quirino Perez

- Martinez appeals the sentence for his conviction of illegal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50198 Document: 00514292346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2018No. 17

- 50198

2 reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). He maintains that the sentence violates due process because i t was enhanced based on a convic tion not alleged in the indictment, but he correctly c oncedes that his position is fore closed by
Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226

− 2 7 , 235 , 247 (1998). Accordingly, the g overnment’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED,
its alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-50198 Document: 00514292346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
exv10w2



 




FIRST AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT



     FIRST AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”), dated September 21, 2006, by and
among Champion Retail, Inc., a Michigan corporation (“Seller”), Bayshore Advantage LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (“Buyer”), and the other parties thereto.



     The parties have entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement, dated September 8, 2006 (the
“Purchase Agreement”), for the purchase by Buyer of the equity interests of San Jose Advantage
Homes, Inc., a California corporation. The parties wish to amend the Purchase Agreement as
provided herein.



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as
follows:



1. The first sentence of Section 2.1 of the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:



“The closing of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the
“Closing”) shall take place at the offices of Dykema Gossett PLLC, Suite
300, 39577 Woodward, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304, at 10:00 a.m., local time, on
November 8, 2006, or at such earlier date as may be mutually agreed upon by Seller
and Buyer (such time and date being referred to herein as the “Closing
Date”).”



2. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



3. All other terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and
remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written.





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	BAYSHORE ADVANTAGE LLC	 	 	 	CHAMPION RETAIL, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ James D. Nichols	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ John J. Collins, Jr.	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	James D. Nichols, Managing Member	 	 	 	John J. Collins, Jr., Vice President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ENCORE PARTNERS, LLC	 	 	 	CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ James D. Nichols	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ John J. Collins, Jr.	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	James D. Nichols, Managing Member	 	 	 	John J. Collins, Jr., Senior Vice President
#### Terry WEBSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF COOL VALLEY, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 61173.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Seven.

Oct. 20, 1992.

Terry Webster, pro se.

No appearance for defendant-respondent.

KAROHL, Chief Judge.

On March 19, 1991, plaintiff, Terry Webster, filed a petition for replevin which was dismissed on July 2, 1991, as being barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff appeals after the denial of his motion for new trial. Because the notice of appeal was untimely we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

On July 19, 1991, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial styled a motion to vacate and reopen the judgment. The court overruled the motion on October 21, 1991. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 1991.

It is our duty to determine sua sponte whether we have jurisdiction before addressing the issues on appeal. *Peters v. United Consumers Club,*786 S.W.2d 192, 193 (Mo.App.1990).

A party may, but need not, file a motion for a new trial in a matter ruled by the trial court. The motion must be filed within fifteen days after judgment. Rule 73.01(a)(3). If untimely the motion is a nullity. *In re Marriage of Grigery,*818 S.W.2d 738, 739 (Mo.App.1991). The filing deadline for plaintiff’s motion under 73.-01(a)(3) was July 17, 1991. Plaintiff filed an untimely motion on July 19,1991. Since plaintiffs motion was not valid, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff’s motion. The only valid decree of the circuit court was the dismissal of plaintiff's petition for replevin.

For the purpose of ascertaining the time within which an appeal may be taken, a judgment in a court tried case becomes final at the expiration of thirty days after the entry of such judgment, if no timely motion for a new trial is filed. Rule 81.-05(a). No appeal shall be effective unless the notice of appeal shall be filed not later than ten days after the judgment or order appealed from becomes final Rule 81.04(a). Therefore, under Rule 81.05(a) the judgment was final on August 1, 1991, and under Rule 81.04(a) the deadline to file a notice of appeal was August 12, 1991.

Since plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on November 12, 1991, it is untimely. We are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

PUDLOWSKI and CRANDALL, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 13.2**

**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 Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2004 of Acergy S.A. (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Stuart Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and 

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

Date: June 30, 2006 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Acergy S.A. and will be retained by Acergy S.A. and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131878 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131878 COA: 270247 Gladwin CC: 04-001554-FC ARTHUR HAROLD DORIE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 21, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
#### James BLADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41545.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 22, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 3, 1989.

Sean O’Brien, Public Defender, Terri L. Backhus, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1 CEO Certifications Under Section 906

                            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 Annual Report of OmniNet Media Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending August 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mitchell Stough, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge that:

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

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

Date: April 21, 2006

By: /s/ Mitchell Stough
   --------------------
Name: Mitchell Stough
Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50198

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

QUIRINO PEREZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:16-CR-305-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Quirino Perez-Martinez appeals the sentence for his conviction of illegal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50198 Document: 00514292346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
No. 17-50198

2

reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). He maintains that the sentence violates 

due process because it was enhanced based on a conviction not alleged in the 

indictment, but he correctly concedes that his position is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226−27, 235, 247 (1998). 

Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 

its alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED, and 

the judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50198 Document: 00514292346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2018