alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

April 30, 2019
Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Aerospace Reception on
April 30, 2019

On April 30, 2019, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (ALAA), a
nonprofit organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a reception at
the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC from 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. The event
is to provide a venue for informal discussion on current challenges the aerospace community
is facing. The event will provide a forum for discussion of the 2019 International
Aeronautical Congress Conference.

Approximately 125 people have been invited to attend the dinner reception. Attendees will
have a diversity of views or interests and will include representatives of the legislative branch,
personnel from academia, industry representatives, employees of other Federal agencies,
foreign nationals, members of the public, and media. The estimated value of the event,
including all food and beverages, is $40 per person. The AIAA is in control of the all the
planning and invitation for the event.

Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange information regarding
various NASA programs. There is also an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend
these events because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas
and views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. I find that the event
meets the requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g).

Accordingly, NASA employees who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the
interests of the AIAA—including NASA employees in non-career positions who are required
to sign the ethics pledge under Executive Order 13770—may accept an invitation from the
AIAA for free attendance to this event. In those circumstances, I find that the Agency’s
interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the individual may be, or may appear to be,
improperly influenced in the performance of their duties.


However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the
interests of the AIAA, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or
administering a Space Act Agreement, or who receive an invitation from a party other than
the event host, AIAA, should seek a separate determination from their local NASA ethics
office as to whether they may accept the invitation.

BAZ

Adam F. Greenstone
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Full House Resorts, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Andre M. Hilliou, Chief Executive Officer of Full House Resorts, Inc., hereby 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 results of operations of Full House Resorts, Inc.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ ANDRE M. HILLIOU
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Andre M. Hilliou       
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Full House Resorts, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, James Meier, Chief Financial Officer of Full House Resorts,
Inc., hereby 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 results of operations of Full House Resorts, Inc.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                 |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------- |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ JAMES MEIER
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                 |  | James Meier            
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                 |  | Chief Financial Officer
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 22, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-1077

(D.C. No.1:09-CV-02999-ZLW) 

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this matter is granted. 10th Cir. R.

27.3(A)(9).

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1077 Document: 01018407087 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Page: 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leonel LUNA-PEREZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10249.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 25, 2003.

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Leonel Luna-Perez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied due process in the deportation proceedings underlying his indictment for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a collateral deportation challenge, and for clear error findings of fact regarding such a motion. *United States v. Hinojosa-Perez,*206 F.3d 832, 835 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

Luna-Perez’s due process rights were not violated when the Immigration Judge ordered him deported in absentia, because the record shows he was sent adequate notice of the hearing. *See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,*468 U.S. 1032, 1038-39, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984) (noting that deportation proceedings are civil in nature, and may proceed in the absence of an alien who fails to appear despite being given a reasonable opportunity to attend); *Farhoud v. INS,*122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (holding notice of deportation hearing sent to alien’s address by certified mail in accordance with agency regulations did not violate due process, because it was reasonably calculated to reach the alien). Moreover, the record does not show that Luna-Perez had reasonable cause for his failure to attend the hearing. *See*8 U.S.C. *714§ 1252(b) (1993); *Hernandez-Vivas v. INS,*23 F.3d 1557, 1562 (9th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Brannam & Jones *v.*F. Byland.

Warehouses — Bailment — Lossi hy Fire — Burden of Proof — Verdict — Weight of Evidence — New Trial.

The appellants alleged in this answer that the whisky was destroyed by fire without their fault. The issue thus found imposed the burden of proving the loss by fire on them.

New Trial — Weight of Evidence — Verdict.

To authorize a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, it must be clearly so. A mere preponderance of the evidence will not authorize a reversal, as it is the province of the jury to determine the weight of evidence.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 28, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The petition alleges that the defendants undertook for compensation to safely store and keep whisky in controversy, and agreed *584to deliver same to the plaintiff in good order whenever they should be requested to do so, and that although requested to do so the defendants had failed and refused to deliver the whisky. The answer not controverting the alleged terms of the bailment alleges in accordance that the whisky while in their possession, and without fault or negligence on their part, was destroyed by fire.

In our opinion the issue thus formed imposed on the defendants the burden of proving the loss of the whisky by fire, and that they used ordinary care and prudence in endeavoring to safely keep it and the admission of the consumption of the whisky dispensed with proof of a dismissal.

The court gave no instructions at the instance of the plaintiff and refused none asked by defendants.

It is insisted for the appellants that the court erred in allowing plaintiff’s counsel to conclude the argument to the jury. It is not shown by the record that such a question was reserved, but if such was the ruling of the court, we incline to the opinion that it was not erroneous, as the alleged value and quantity of the whisky were controverted by the answer.

Whether the verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence or not is the only remaining question to be considered.

It is too well established to require the citation of authority that to authorize a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the evidence, it must be clearly so, and a mere preponderance of the evidence against the verdict, in the opinion of this court, would not alone authorize a reversal, as it was properly the province of the jury to determine the weight of the evidence. We think the jury may well have inferred from the testimony of the appellants and witness Turley, if not from other evidence, that the whisky was destroyed in consequence of some act of carelessness on the part of one of them. But without a more minute examination of the evidence, it is sufficient to say that the evidence does not seem to so preponderate against the verdict as to authorize us to reverse the judgment.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1722

To suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns for cathode ray tubes 

(CRT’s) with a high definition television screen aspect ratio of 16:9. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2003

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on electron guns for cathode ray tubes (CRT’s) with a high definition television 

screen aspect ratio of 16:9.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELECTRON GUNS FOR CATHODE RAY TUBES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.85.25 Electron guns actually used for cathode ray tubes (CRT’s) with a high 

definition television screen aspect 

ratio of 16:9 (provided for in subheading 8540.91.50) .......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 
2

•S 1722 IS 

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

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

4 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renifer John MCFADDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-30059.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 3, 2003.

Stephen A. Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tania Christina Tetlow, Assistant U.S. Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert F. Barnard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robin Elise Schulberg, *409New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Renifer John McFadden appeals from his sentence entered after a guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and for making a false statement as to a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(B). He argues that the district court erred in denying an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. However, the district court provided several reasons supporting its doubt of McFadden’s true acceptance of responsibility.1 Giving great deference to the district court’s decision to deny sentencing leniency under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, we AFFIRM.

*

 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.

1

. *See United States v. Solis,*299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir.2002) ("While we generally review a district court’s factual finding under the Guidelines for clear error, [a] district court’s determination of whether a defendant is entitled to a reduction of his offense level for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed with even more deference than the pure clearly erroneous standard. As such, [w]e will affirm a sentencing court’s decision not to award a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 unless it is without foundation.” (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted)).
#### Woods *v.*Anderson and Wife.

A defendant in an action of slander may prove, under the general issue, the general bad character of the plaintiff in mitigation of damages; and, therefore, the defendant’s affidavit for a continuance in such case, on account bf the absence of witnesses by whom that fact could be proved, cannot be objected to on the ground that the witnesses are not material.

*Saturday, July*3.

ERROR to the *Jefferson*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

This was ah action'of slander in which *Jane*Sheridan, whilst sole, and who is now the wife of *WiU Ham*Anderson, was plaintiff, and *Woods*defendant. Plea, the general issue. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

*599
      *M. G.*Bright, for the plaintiff.

*J. L. While,*for the defendants.

At the term to which the writ was returnable, and after issue joined, the defendant moved for a continuance of the cause on account of the absence of witnesses resident in another county. The motion was founded on an affidavit in the usual form, stating the names of the witnesses, the facts to be proved, that they had been subpoenaed in time, that no others were known by whom the same facts could be proved, and that it was believed their attendance could be had at the next term. The continuance was refused. It was the general bad character of the plaintiff that was to be proved by the witnesses named in the affidavit; and it is said that if nothing more could be proved by them, their absence was no cause for a continuance.

We think that the matter expected to be proved by'the witnesses in question was admissible, in this case, in mitigation of damages. *Earl of Leicester*v. *Walter,*2 Camp. 251._v. Moor, 1 Maule and Selw. 285. That being so, -the witnesses named in the affidavit were very material for the defendant; and their absence, under the circumstances, was a good ground for a continuance.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the verdict set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27683]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than November 16, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Robert John Dentel, Victor, Iowa, and Mary P. Howell, Ames, 
Iowa; each to control 25 percent or more of the voting shares of Dentel 
Bancorporation, and thereby indirectly control of Victor State Bank, 
both of Victor, Iowa; Corydon State Bank, Corydon, Iowa; First State 
Bank of Colfax, Colfax, Iowa; Maxwell State Bank, Maxwell, Iowa; 
Pocahontas State Bank, Pocahontas, Iowa; and Panora State Bank, Panora, 
Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 28, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-27683 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Kristine Engelke, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that the
Quarterly Report of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                       |  |                                              
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: November 2, 2010 |  | /s/ Kristine Engelke                         
|                       |  | Kristine Engelke Principal
Accounting Officer

This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
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 amended annual report of North Coast Partners,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Wong Peck  Ling,  President  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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.



Dated:  July 1, 2004             /s/ Wong Peck Ling
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Wong Peck Ling,
                                 President and Chief Financial Officer
                                 (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting
                                 Officer)
Order entered October 21, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00703
- CV
JASON MARTINEZ AND HOLLY WOODARD MARTINEZ , Appellant s V. ICAN FINANCIAL, INC. , Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 21
- 09112

O RDER This is an accelerated appeal. On September 21, 2021, we ordered the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record and further ordered appell ants to file their brief no later than October 11, 2021. To date, however, the brief has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER appellants to file their brief no later than November 1, 2021. We caution appellants that failure to file the brief may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32**

**** 

**BISON INSTRUMENTS, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

**** 

**** 

The undersigned, Edward G. Lampman, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bison Instruments, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2009 (the “Report”).

 

The undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

 

Date:  January 20, 2010