alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AD E DO T UN E DU N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72880 A ge nc yN o. A 038- 798- 399 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , M c K E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A de dotun E dun, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of N i ge r i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a lf r om an i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n d e p o rta tio n p r o c e e d in g s h e ldin abs e nt i a . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of 

# FI LED FEB 24 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72880 2 d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n , Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 7 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he agency di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng E du n’ s m ot i on t o reopen f o rf a ilu r e to s h o w “r e a s o n ab le c au s e ” f o rh is ab s e n c e f

r o m h is s c h e du le dh e ar in g . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T he agency a l so di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the m ot i on t o reopen w h e r e E du n f

a ile dto s h o w p r im af

a c ie e lig ib ilityf

o rr e lie f . See 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) . E dun’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons ar e unava i l i ng. P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 FRANK TYLER, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 32,190 4 ARMANDO VILLEGAS 5 and USAA, 6 Defendants-Appellees. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Clay Campbell, District Judge 9 Frank Tyler 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 Pro Se Appellant 12 Civerolo, Gralow, Hill & Curtis 13 Megan D. Hill 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellees 162 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 KENNEDY, Judge. 2 Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 3 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has 4 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. 5 DISMISSED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

_______________________________ 8 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

___________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 12

___________________________ 13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 14
#### Berdie WILLIS, Tutrix, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WEST MONROE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 5845.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 10, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 1939.

Certiorari and Review Denied April 3, 1939.

McBride & Goff, of Ruston, for appellant.

Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Snellings, of Monroe, and W. Decker Moore, of West Monroe, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This case grew out of the same accident involved in the suit on the docket of this court decided today, styled Harry P. Clinton, Tutor, v. City of West Monroe, 187 So. 561; and for the reasons therein assigned, the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed at plaintiff’s cost. '
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22269]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-100-004; ER07-265-004; ER07-1215-005]


Sempra Energy Trading LLC; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC; The Royal 
Bank of Scotland plc; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2008, Sempra Energy Trading LLC, 
Sempra Energy Solutions LLC, and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc 
(together Applicants) filed a petition for acceptance of revised 
market-based rate schedules in response to a request by Commission 
staff, regarding the Applicants July 30, 2008 designation of Seller 
Category filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d1b180f1e1233313433380e282d2d322f291d3b382f3e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99dfdccbdad6f7f5f0f7fccaece9e9f6ebedd9fffcebfab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 3, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22269 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-12-01/02-SM

Da Van Ha and 

Huu Quang Dihn

O R D E R

Defendant Ha’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial is

granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2007 trial

period. Defendant Ha shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

February 22, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, this continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: May 24, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: June 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00012-SM Document 17 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 13, 2007

cc: Philip R. Desfosses, Esq.

Glenn C. Geiger, Esq.

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00012-SM Document 17 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1757

To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make certain products

eligible for drawback.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to make

certain products eligible for drawback.

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

3 SECTION 1. REFUNDS, WAIVERS, OR REDUCTIONS UNDER

4 THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREE5 MENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 313(n)(2) of the Tariff

7 Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(n)(2)) is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘(p),’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of
2

•HR 1757 IH

1 this Act, and shall apply to any drawback claim filed on

2 or after that date.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avenue Entertainment Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gene Feldman, President and Chief Executive and 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 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: February 16, 2006


                                                 Gene Feldman
                                                 President and Chief Executive
                                                 and Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DARRELL D. SNELL, DOC #893030, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3618 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 11, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; J. Frank Porter, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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 this Annual Report of Beam Therapeutics Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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: March 30, 2020 | By:    |   | /s/ John Evans           |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                 |   |   | John Evans                    |
|                 |   |   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                 |   |   | (Principal executive officer) |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ARTHUR D. MOBLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-2111 RICHARD RUDEZ; HENRY PANKIE; JOHN BAKER; DANIEL KAHN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1685-HAR) Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: January 21, 1997 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Arthur D. Mobley, Appellant Pro Se.

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

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of hiscivil action. Appellant's complaint sought damages for alleged conduct by his supervisors and others at the United States Postal Service whose actions he claims forced him into disability retirement. The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint on its own motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We v acate and remand for further consideration. A court may, on its own initiative, dismiss a civil complaint for failing to state a claim. 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 301 (2d ed. 1990). In suchsituations, however, notice and an opportunity to be heard are normally required. E.g. , Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank , 874 F.2d 1177, 1184-85 (7th Cir. 1989). Although this Court has not directly addressed the notice issue in the context of a sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), we have held that notice and an opportunity to be heard are required, regardless of the merits, prior to a sua sponte summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. United States Dev. Corp. v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n , 873 F.2d 731, 736 (4th Cir. 1989). Because Appellant did not receive notice of the district court's intention to enter a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1384

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

route in Arizona and New Mexico which the Navajo

and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced to walk

in 1863 and 1864, for study for potential addition to

the National Trails System.
2

HR 1384 RFS

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 ‘‘Long Walk National

5 Historic Trail Study Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds the following:

8 (1) Beginning in the fall of 1863 and ending in

9 the winter of 1864, the United States Government

10 forced thousands of Navajos and Mescalero Apaches

11 to relocate from their ancestral lands to Fort Sum12 ner, New Mexico, where the tribal members were

13 held captive, virtually as prisoners of war, for over

14 4 years.

15 (2) Thousands of Native Americans died at

16 Fort Sumner from starvation, malnutrition, disease,

17 exposure, or conflicts between the tribes and United

18 States military personnel.

19 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

20 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

21 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol22 lowing new paragraph:

23 ‘‘(ll) The Long Walk Trail, a series of routes

24 which the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes

25 were forced to walk beginning in the fall of 1863 as a
3

HR 1384 RFS

1 result of their removal by the United States Government

2 from their ancestral lands, generally located within a cor3 ridor extending through portions of Canyon de Chelley,

4 Arizona, and Albuquerque, Canyon Blanco, Anton Chico,

5 Canyon Piedra Pintado, and Fort Sumner, New Mexico.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 2,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1982
          2
          3
          3
          3
          111983
          1
          1
          2
          3
          71984
          3
          7
          10
          12
          321985
          12
          21
          17
          18
          681986
          14
          14
          21
          16
          651987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 30, 2003
23

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of total non-real-estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1993...... 54 7 16 5 26 .155 .020 .049 .014 .069

1994...... 69 10 11 15 33 .187 .026 .032 .037 .082

1995...... 51 -2 14 13 25 .131 -.004 .039 .032 .061

1996...... 95 16 27 24 30 .240 .039 .070 .058 .071

1997...... 93 6 19 19 50 .230 .014 .049 .045 .112

1998...... 87 4 15 24 45 .198 .008 .036 .051 .095

1999...... 126 18 37 35 36 .280 .040 .086 .078 .080

2000...... 108 11 17 34 45 .259 .027 .041 .075 .098

2001...... 308 67 53 140 48 .656 .142 .118 .294 .101

2002...... 221 40 50 58 73 .471 .085 .114 .124 .157

2003...... 175 34 35 48 58 .382 .074 .080 .108 .128

2004...... n.a. 28 17 n.a. n.a. n.a. .062 .039 n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude

foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks that

are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
18

A.13. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rated Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 466,937 70,161 80,062 114,742 39,035 4,681 27,789 Number of loans 19,255 2,933 4,567 5,819 1,318 283 1,273 Weighted average maturity (months)1 42.40 25.55 35.38 39.46 119.82 4.43 17.50 

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 11.47 13.70 14.36 10.42 10.42 1.67 7.77 

Weighted average risk rating3 2.44 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate4 6.28 6.02 6.40 6.60 6.67 7.27 6.16 

 Standard error5 .14 .26 .37 .15 .36 .59 .27  Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.96 6.72 7.23 7.25 6.96 7.71 7.52  25th percentile 5.27 5.06 5.39 5.97 6.54 7.70 5.05  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.76 4.46 6.04 6.49 n.a. n.a. 7.58  Other livestock 7.19 9.21 n.a. 8.79 6.97 5.94 6.51  Other current operating expenses7 6.40 6.50 6.77 6.46 6.46 7.35 6.36 

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.52 7.02 5.82 6.60 8.00 7.23 7.41  Farm real estate 5.86 5.43 5.76 6.64 6.43 n.a. 6.11  Other8 6.28 3.53 5.95 5.57 6.81 n.a. 5.45 

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 56.43 44.44 54.20 46.03 77.37 52.24 37.73  Under commitment 54.73 34.19 54.12 67.23 89.73 98.06 46.06  Callable 28.28 7.79 6.01 24.74 12.53 n.a. 49.62  Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.15 .80 3.48 .41 n.a. n.a. 2.03  Other livestock 5.15 .32 1.75 6.12 5.07 5.66 6.42  Other current operating expenses7 51.12 51.19 59.84 64.80 38.20 93.50 25.48 

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.99 2.84 10.39 6.49 .49 .85 11.55  Farm real estate 22.56 44.79 17.22 16.90 5.43 n.a. 21.31  Other8 11.02 .06 7.32 5.28 50.81 n.a. 33.23 

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 35.58 47.87 33.60 27.01 64.88 72.50 20.81  Other 61.39 46.55 64.57 68.12 32.58 27.50 76.40  Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al. 

v. Case No. 07-cv-356-SM

Hanover School District, et al. 

CLERK'S SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE TO

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

I, Judith Barrett, Deputy Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire, do hereby certify that the following documents constitute the supplemental record on

appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals:

DOCUMENTS NUMBERED: 65, 66 and 67

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my

hand and affix the seal of said Court, at Concord,

in said District, on this day, November 23, 2009.

JAMES R. STARR, Clerk

By: ____________________________

Judith Barrett

Deputy Clerk

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 68 Filed 11/23/09 Page 1 of 1