alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18566]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11328]


Kansas Disaster Number KS-00027

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kansas 
(FEMA-1776-DR), dated 07/09/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 05/22/2008 through 06/16/2008.
    Effective Date: 08/05/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/08/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Kansas, dated 07/09/2008, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties:
    Elk, Haskell, Reno, Wilson.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18566 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISTOBAL GONON TZUN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73897 

Agency No. A070-939-711 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Cristobal Gonon Tzun, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation 

proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

 

* 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

OCT 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73897 

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and 

review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-

92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying 

Gonon Tzun’s motion to reopen for failure to establish lack of notice of his 

deportation hearing, where the record contains a signed Order to Show Cause 

(“OSC”) and evidence of personal service. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) 

(a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order may be filed at any time if the 

alien demonstrates lack of notice of his hearing); 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1994) 

(requiring written notice of the time and place of proceedings be personally served 

on the alien or if personal service is not practicable, requiring written notice be 

given by certified mail). The record does not support Gonon Tzun’s contention that 

the agency failed to consider evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 

990 (9th Cir. 2010); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonon Tzun’s unexhausted contention that 

service was improper because the OSC was not read to him in a language he could 

understand. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack 

jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative 

proceedings before the BIA.”).
3 16-73897 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Matthew Krieg, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Generation Zero Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Generation Zero Group, Inc.


By:/s/ Matthew Krieg
 Matthew Krieg
 Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
 
 January 25, 2013
#### Raymond T. Wyer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McKeown-Phalin Chevrolet, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 65-159. (Abstract of Decision.)

Second District.

August 30, 1966.

Henry H. Caldwell, of Chicago, for appellant; Harry S. and Fred S. Posner, of Chicago, for appellee.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE MORAN. Not to be published in full.
EXHIBIT 31.1
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  I, Robert T. Strong, certify that:
  1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Quaint Oak Bancorp, Inc.; and
  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.
  
 Date: May24, 2011
/s/Robert T. StrongRobert T. StrongPresident and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                                      2004
                           CERTIFICATE OF REINSURANCE
                                    for the
                            AGREEMENT OF REINSURANCE
                                  between the
                 WORKERS' COMPENSATION REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION
                                      and
                                    RTW INC

                American Compensation Insurance Company 0030392

COVERAGE PERIOD: January 1, 2004 - December 31, 2004   RETENTION LIMIT: $360,000
(12:01 a.m. Standard Time)

     This certifies that the entities named above are Members of the Workers'
Compensation Reinsurance Association (WCRA), and that the WCRA reinsures the
Members' liability during the indicated coverage period for benefits pursuant to
Minn. Stat. Ch. 176 in excess of the Members' retention limit for the period
indicated above. This certificate provides for coverage in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the Reinsurance Agreement approved by the Commissioner
of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry on December 24, 2002. This
certificate shall not be valid for any portion of the indicated period during
which an entity is not a Member of the Association.

                                          /s/ Carl W. Cummins III
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Carl W. Cummins III
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          Dated: December 26, 2003

                Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Association(R)
 Suite 1700, 400 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651.293.0999
                         Fax: 651.229.1848 www.wcra.biz
#### Marvin Eugene Johnson v. State

No. 26623.

January 9, 1952.

Hon. A. O. Newman, Judge Presiding.

*571No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*Henry Wade,*Criminal District Attorney, and *Charles S. Potts,*Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Dallas County, Dallas, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant appeals from a death penalty upon his conviction for murder.

The offense was committed in the city of Dallas where an indictment was returned and the case was subsequently transferred to Brown County for trial.

The facts of the case will sustain the jury’s verdict and we find but one bill of exception in the record. The deceased was a policeman in the performance of his duty in attempting to arrest appellant, together with others, at the time he was shot to death. The state, after having proved the death of Sides as the result of a gun shot wound, placed his mother on the stand, who testified that her son was dead. Objection was made on the ground that the mother is a deaf mute and had to testify through an interpreter. The complaint is that her presence in court and on the witness stand, speaking through an interpreter, was inflammatory and highly prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.

While such is the grounds of objection, we are not given a picture of the situation which in the least will indicate the correctness of such objection. We are called upon, in the state of the bill, to reach this conclusion by taking judicial knowledge that such would result from the appearance of the mother and the fact that she is a deaf mute. We know of no basis for this conclusion.

No other question is presented for our consideration and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 535 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 535

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 8 (legislative day, June 5), 1995

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning National 
                Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.
    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 ``Corning National Fish Hatchery 
Conveyance Act''.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF 
              ARKANSAS.

    (a) Conveyance Requirement.--Within 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to 
the State of Arkansas without reimbursement all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in and to the property described in 
subsection (b), for use by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as 
part of the State of Arkansas fish culture program.
    (b) Property Described.--The property referred to in subsection (a) 
is the property known as the Corning National Fish Hatchery (popularly 
known as the William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery), located one mile 
west of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas State Highway 67 in Clay County, 
Arkansas, consisting of 137.34 acres (more or less), and all 
improvements and related personal property under the control of the 
Secretary that is located on that property, including buildings, 
structures, and equipment.
    (c) Use and Reversionary Interest.--The property conveyed to the 
State of Arkansas pursuant to this section shall be used by the State 
for purposes of fishery resources management, and if it is used for any 
other purpose all right, title, and interest in and to all property 
conveyed pursuant to this section shall revert to the United States. 
The State of Arkansas shall ensure that the property reverting to the 
United States is in substantially the same or better condition as at 
the time of transfer.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of John McGovern, Deceased.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
186 La. 574

#### PRADAT v. SALATHE.

No. 34064.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1937.

Rehearing Denied March 1, 1937.

Joseph A. Casey, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Henican & Carriere, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment ordering defendant to pay plaintiff $32 per month for the support and maintenance of their minor child, on the ground that the amount is excessive.

On June 30, 1932, plaintiff obtained judgment of divorce against defendant and custody of their minor child, Walter T. Salathe, Jr., also alimony in the sum of $32 for the support and maintenance of the child.

Since that time, both plaintiff and defendant have remarried. The child is now ten years of age.

The sole question presented here is whether the alimony for the support of the child is excessive.

The evidence shows that the defendant receives $125 per month salary and $40 per month for automobile expenses, as agent for a finance company; that plaintiff receives from $9 to $13 per week operating a laundry substation; that she also' operates a rooming house; that her husband owns and operates another rooming house. There is no evidence as to the revenue derived from the rooming houses. From the facts in the case, we believe that judgment for $32 per month for the support and maintenance of the minor child is excessive; that $20 per month would be more reasonable; and that the judgment should be amended accordingly.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is amended by reducing the amount of alimony for the support and maintenance of the minor to $20 per month, and as amended judgment is affirmed; plaintiff to pay cost of appeal and defendant to pay cost of lower court.

On Petition for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

 Since the mother is claiming alimony in behalf of her minor child from its father, the defendant, and as we have a discretion in assessing the costs of court, our decree is amended so as to place the costs of both courts upon the defendant father. Subject to this amendment, the rehearing is refused. •
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47199-47200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18745]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Notice of Listing of Members of the National Institutes of 
Health's Senior Executive Service 2008 Performance Review Board

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announces the persons who 
will serve on the National Institutes of Health's Senior Executive 
Service 2008 Performance Review Board. This action is being taken in 
accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4), which requires 
that members of performance review boards be appointed in a manner to 
ensure consistency, stability, and objectivity in performance 
appraisals, and requires that notice of the appointment of an 
individual to serve as a member be published in the Federal Register.
    The following persons will serve on the NIH Performance Review 
Board,

[[Page 47200]]

which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of NIH Senior 
Executive Service (SES) members:

Ms. Colleen Barros (Chair)
Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo
Mr. Gahan Breithaupt
Dr. Michael Gottesman
Ms. Robin Kawazoe
Dr. Raynard Kington
Dr. Michael Marron
Dr. Ellen Stover

    For further information about the NIH Performance Review Board, 
contact the Office of Human Resources, Workforce Relations Division, 
National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room B3C07, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, telephone 301-402-9203 (not a toll-free number).

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Elias A. Zerhouni,
Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. E8-18745 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### George Walheimer v. William Bianchi and Others.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LUZAY WATSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 351 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### McALLISTER NAVIGATION COMPANY, Inc., and Daniel F. McAllister, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUTTON LINES, Inc., and John H. Hubbard, A Major in the Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, and Also Known and Designated as Purchasing and Contracting Officer for the United States Army, and United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 280.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 4, 1938.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

Lewis Landes, of New York City, for appellants.

Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Charles J. Nager, of New York City, of counsel), for the U. S., and John R. Hubbard.

Chas. J. Katzenstein, of New York City, for Sutton Lines, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 20, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00105-CV

IN THE MATTER OF W.A.M.P.

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-00197J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We issue this opinion to address appellant’s issue 2, the sole remaining issue 

in this case, in which appellant challenges his commitment to the Texas Juvenile 

Justice Department. On July 28, 2022, we issued a memorandum opinion 

overruling appellant’s issues 3 and 4, which challenged the legal and factual 

sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that appellant 

engaged in delinquent conduct by committing in January 2020 the second-degree 

felony of manslaughter. We sustained appellant’s issue 1 on the grounds that the 

trial court’s determination order committing appellant to the Texas Juvenile Justice 

Department was insufficiently specific under Family Code section 54.04(f), and 
2

remanded the case, abating by separate order with instructions that the trial court 

make findings compliant with the Family Code. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(f).

The trial court signed its disposition findings and order on August 24, 2022. 

After the order was received by this court, we requested supplemental briefing 

from the parties on appellant’s issue 2, in which appellant argued that the trial 

court abused its discretion by committing appellant to the Texas Juvenile Justice 

Department. In response, appellant’s lawyer informed this court that appellant had 

been deported and argued that issue 2 was now moot, given that appellant was no 

longer committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department.1 We agree that issue 2 

is moot, given that, due to appellant’s deportation, this court can no longer provide 

the relief requested, i.e., probation at appellant’s home instead of commitment to

the Texas Juvenile Justice Department.

Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s issue 2 as moot. Having disposed of all 

of appellant’s issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as challenged on 

appeal. 

/s/ Charles A. Spain

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.

1 We requested a response from the State but no response has been filed.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DALE PELLENS and MARLENE PELLENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAMARA L. MALONE,

Defendant.

___________________________________ /

Case Number: 09-11999

JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REMOVAL PETITION AND

REMANDING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TO STATE COURT

Defendant Tamara L. Malone filed a petition for removal in this Court on May 26, 2009,

purporting to remove a landlord/tenant action that had been filed against her in state district court.

(Doc. No. 1). On August 6, 2009, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should

not be dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 5). The Court also ordered

Plaintiff to file the state court complaint, which was not attached to the removal petition.

On August 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed the state court complaint, but did not otherwise respond

to the Court’s order to show cause. The state court complaint does not contain a federal claim, nor

is this a diversity case between citizens of different case. A state court complaint presenting only

state law claims is not removable, absent diversity, unless “some substantial, disputed question of

federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded state claims or if the plaintiff's claim

is really one of federal law . . . .” Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario v. City

of Detroit, 874 F.2d 332, 339 (6th Cir.1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

2:09-cv-11999-PDB-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 08/25/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 27
2

In this case, Plaintiffs have not asserted a federal claim and no other basis for federal

jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s removal petition, pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and remands this case to state court.

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 25, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

August 25, 2009.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11999-PDB-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 08/25/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 28