alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Scott *v.*Brokaw.

The recognizance of bail, which is required by the practice act to be indorsed on a *capias ad respondendum,*need not be under seal.

*Wednesday, December*2.

ERROR to the *Knox*Circuit Court.

Dewey, *J.*

Scott sued *Brokaw*in debt on a recognizance of bail entered into by the latter in a suit by *Scott*against one *Myers.*The declaration conforms to the precedents of the books, as far as the manner of entering into bail prescribed by our statute will admit. It contains the substance of the usual forms of declarations in such cases. The defendant demurred generally to the declaration; and the Court sustained the demurrer, and rendered final judgment for the defendant.

The objection urged against the declaration is, that it does not show that the recognizance was sealed by the bail. The recognizance is on the back of the writ, and is precisely in the form given by the statute. We do not consider that it was necessary, that a seal should be affixed to the signature of the bail. The statute enacts that a recognizance of bail, in the prescribed form, shall have all the force and effect of a regular recognizance of special bail, and shall be in all respects obligatory as such. R. C. 1831, p. 400. — R. S. 1838, p. 446. The Circuit Court erred in sustaining the demurrer.

*458C. *Fletcher*and 0. Butler, for the plaintiff.

*S. Judah*and *A. T.*Ellis, for the 'defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Exhibit 24.1


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


         The undersigned, acting in the capacity or capacities stated opposite
their respective names below, hereby severally constitute and appoint Jennifer
Lowry, William R. Luraschi and Peter K. Ingerman and each of them with full
power to act alone, our true and lawful attorneys and agents to do any and all
acts and things and to execute any and all instruments which they deem necessary
or advisable for AES NY, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company ("AES
NY"), acting in its capacity as general partner of AES Eastern Energy, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership ("AES Eastern"), to enable AES Eastern to comply
with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with the
execution and filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AES Eastern for the
year ended December 31, 2000 and any related registration statements,
amendments, post-effective amendments or supplements thereto, including
specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the power
and authority to sign the name of the AES NY, for itself or as general partner
of AES Eastern, and the names of the undersigned directors and officers in the
capacities indicated below.

         This Power of Attorney may be executed in counterparts, which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.

Signature                          Title                            Date
------------------- ------------------------------------------- --------------


/s/ Dan Rothaupt     President (Chief Executive Officer) and      March 29, 2001
-------------------  Class A Director of AES NY, L.L.C.
Dan Rothaupt


/s/ John Ruggirello  Vice President and Class A Director of       March 29, 2001
-------------------  AES NY, L.L.C.
John Ruggirello


/s/ Roger F. Naill   Class A Director of AES NY, L.L.C.           March 29, 2001
-------------------
Roger F. Naill

/s/ Michael Romaniw  Vice President and Treasurer                 March 29, 2001
-------------------  (principal financial officer)
Michael Romaniw       of AES NY, L.L.C.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1746 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1746

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, New York, as the ``Brian C. Hickey 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 16, 2003

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, New York, as the ``Brian C. Hickey 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BRIAN C. HICKEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Brian C. Hickey Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Brian C. 
Hickey Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
302 CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy B. Shannon, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dale
Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;

         4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
12a-14) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:

      a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: March 28, 2008               /s/Timothy B. Shannon
                                   ----------------------------
                                   Timothy B. Shannon
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,374
<SECURITIES>                                     3,971
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                       140
<INVENTORY>                                     10,862
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,867
<PP&E>                                           4,594
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,108
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,444
<SALES>                                          5,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,863
<CGS>                                            4,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    41
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     87
<INCOME-TAX>                                        34
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 53
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        53
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
#### Patience Orock MBENG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-2444.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 29, 2003.

Decided Aug. 27, 2003.

Donald L. Schlemmer, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Genevieve Holm, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Patience Orock Mbeng, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her applications for asylum and for withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the administrative record and find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the IJ and the Board that Mbeng failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in a protected category, as necessary to qualify for relief from deportation. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994); *8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2002). Thus, the record supports the Board’s conclusion that Mbeng failed to establish her eligibility for asylum.

Additionally, we uphold the Board’s denial of Mbeng’s application for withholding of deportation. The standard for receiving withholding of deportation is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” *Chen v. U.S. I.N.S.,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th *256Cir.1999). An applicant for withholding must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. *I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). As Mbeng has failed to establish refugee status, she cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation.

Finally, we conclude that the Board did not err in denying Mbeng’s motion to remand, as her eligibility under the diversity visa program has expired. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(G)(ii)(II) (2000); *Nyaga v. Ashcroft,*323 F.3d 906, 914-15 (11th Cir.2003).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub.L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009 (IIR-IRA), effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, § 1105a(a)(4) is applicable here under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.
STEPHEN D. THORNE (LIEUTENANT COMMANDER, USN)

NASA ASTRONAUT (DECEASED)

BIRTHPLACE AND DATE: Born February 11, 1953, in Frankfurt-on-Main, 

West Germany. Died May 24, 1986. He is survived by his wife, Sue. He enjoyed 

baseball, running, reading, and general aviation.

EDUCATION: Graduated from T.L. Hanna High School, Anderson, South 

Carolina, in 1971; received a bachelor of science degree in systems engineering 

from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1975.

ORGANIZATIONS: Member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. Life 

member of the Naval Academy Alumni Association.

SPECIAL HONORS: Received Navy Commendation Medal in January 1986.

EXPERIENCE: Upon graduation from the Naval Academy, Thorne entered flight training and received his wings in 

December 1976. Following training in the F-4 Phantom, he joined Fighter Squadron 21 (VF-21) and deployed to the 

Western Pacific aboard the USS Ranger. After training at the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School in 1981, Thorne spent the next 

two years at Strike Aircraft Test at the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland, flying mostly ordnance and 

weapons systems tests in the F-4 and A-7 Corsair II. He completed F-18 Hornet transition training in October 1984 and 

joined Strike Fighter Squadron 132 (VFA-132) aboard USS Coral Sea until departing for NASA. 

He accumulated over 2,500 hours and 200 carrier landings in approximately 30 different types of aircraft.

NASA EXPERIENCE: Thorne was selected as an astronaut by NASA in June 1985 and, in August, commenced a one-year 

training and evaluation program to qualify him for subsequent assignment as a pilot on future Space Shuttle flightcrews. 

Lieutenant Commander Thorne was killed in an aircraft accident, in which he was a passenger, on May 24, 1986.

NOVEMBER 1986

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Biographical Data

 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

 Houston, Texas 77058
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

October 15, 2021

(ole)
TO: Distribution
FROM: OGC/Agency Counsel for Ethics, Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Lucy Mission Post
Launch Mission Event, October 16, 2021

Lockheed Martin (LM) will host a post-launch dinner to recognize the Lucy Mission at the Rising Tide
Tap and Grille, in Port Canaveral, FL on October 16, 2021. Approximately 100 guests will attend
including representatives from industry, state and federal government, and other organizations. The
approximate value of the dinner is $46 a person.

In accordance with 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g), Gifts of Free Attendance at Widely Attended Gatherings, |
find this event meets the requirements of a widely attended gathering, and I further determine that there is
an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend this event because their participation will further
agency programs and operations. Specifically, this event allows NASA employees to share information
and exchange views about NASA’s mission plans and priorities. This event also provides a forum for the
attendees to disseminate information on NASA’s ongoing activities and to discuss matters of interest to
NASA with a diverse group of fellow attendees. Because of these benefits to NASA, and having
considered the factors enumerated in 5 CFR § 2635.204(g)(4), I also find that the Agency’s interest in the
invited NASA employees’ attendance outweighs the concern that such employees may be, or may appear
to be, improperly influenced in the performance of official duties.

However, NASA employees whose duties may substantially affect any of the event sponsor, such as by
way of contracting duties, should seek an individual determination pursuant to 5 C.F.R.

§ 2635.204(g)(3)(i), regarding participation in this event from their local ethics counselor. Moreover,
NASA employees who are in non-career positions in which Executive Order 13989 requires signing an
ethics pledge may only accept the meals if they reimburse the sponsor the value of the event and any gift
items accepted for themselves and their guest.

Accordingly, and subject to the above, I have determined that NASA invitees may accept their invitations
for complimentary attendance at this event under the ethics rules. NASA attendees are reminded to
exercise any COVID-19 precautions and obtain any administrative approvals related to COVID safety
appropriate to their individual situations.

Adam F. Greenst
Agency Counsel for Ethics, Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 4, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR FRYER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant/

 Cross - Appellee,

v.

COIL TUBING SERVICES, LLC., 

 Defendant - Appellee/

 Cross - Appellant.

No. 09-8106

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00004-WFD)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s “Motion for

Voluntary Dismissal of Cross-Appeal.” The motion is granted. Appeal no. 09-8106 is

dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Each party will bear their own costs and attorney

fees on appeal. A copy of this order will stand as the mandate of the court.

Appeal no. 09-8105 shall proceed. The defendant's answer brief shall be served

and filed within 14 days of the date of this order in Appeal no 09-8105. The plaintiff may 

Appellate Case: 09-8106 Document: 01018414998 Date Filed: 05/04/2010 Page: 1
2

serve and file a reply brief within 14 days of the date of service of the defendant's answer

brief.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-8106 Document: 01018414998 Date Filed: 05/04/2010 Page: 2
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 6, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JESSE F. MONTEZ,

Plaintiff, 

RAYMOND ARTHUR PRICE, 

Interested Party - Appellant, 

v. 

BILL RITTER; FRANK GUNTER,

Former Executive Director of the

Colorado Department of Corrections;

BEN JOHNSON, Former Warden of

Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility;

CHERYL SMITH, Medical Administrator

at CTCF; ARI ZAVARAS, Executive

Director of Colorado Department of

Corrections; BOB FURLONG, Warden of

Limon Correctional Facility;

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; BILL PRICE, Warden

of the Arkansas Valley Correctional

Center; R. MARK MCDUFF, Warden of

the Arrowhead Correctional Center, the

Four Mile Correctional Facility, the

Skyline Correctional Center, and the

Pre-Release Correctional Center; GARY

NEET, Warden of the Buena Vista

Correctional Facility; WARREN

DIESSLIN, Former Warden of the Buena

Vista Correctional Facility; FRANK

MILLER, Warden of the Centennial

Correctional Facility; DONICE NEAL,

Warden of the Colorado State

Penitentiary; MARK WILLIAMS,

Warden of the Colorado Women's

No. 10-1059

(D.C. No.1:92-CV-00870-JLK-OES)

Appellate Case: 10-1059 Document: 01018473079 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Page: 1 
Facility; MARK MCKINNA, Warden of

the Colorado Territorial Correctional

Facility; J. FRANK RICE, Dr. Warden of

the Denver Reception and Diagnostic

Center; LARRY EMBRY, Warden of the

Fremont Correctional Facility; TOM

COOPER, Former Warden of the Fremont

Correctional Facility; BILL BOGGS,

Warden of the Rifle Correctional Facility;

BILL BOKROS, Warden of the Pueblo

Minimum Center; DAVID HOLT,

Medical Administrator at the Arrowhead

Correctional Facility, the Centennial

correctional Facility, the Colorado State

Penitentiary, the Fremont Correctional

Facility, and the Skyline Correctional

Facility; JEAN MOLTZ, Medical

Administrator at the Buena Vista

Correctional Facility and the Rifle

Correctional Facility; RON JOHNSON,

Medical Administrator at the Denver

Reception and Diagnostic Center; DON

LAWSON, Clinical Administration

Director at the Limon Correctional

Facility and the Arkansas Valley

Correctional Facility; BOB MOORE, who

supervises the medical department at the

Pueblo Minimum Center, and JOHN

DOE(S), Current and former Wardens of

any Correctional facility maintained,

operated or controlled by the Colorado

Department of Corrections, and JOHN

ROE(S); RONALD G PIERCE;

COLORADO TERRITORIAL

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; BRAD

ROCKWILL; ANNETTE PORTER;

DENVER RECEPTION &

DIAGNOSTIC CENTER; SGT. R.

MURPHY; GLENNTTE SMITH;

BECKY RHOMONA; JIM WEBER; 

Appellate Case: 10-1059 Document: 01018473079 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Page: 2 
3

NARD CLAAR; BILL REED;

FREMONT CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 

10th Cir. R. 42.1.

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

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1059 Document: 01018473079 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Page: 3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JAMES COLE JACKSON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 10095

D.C. No. 4:19

- cr

- 01164

- JGZ

- EJM

- 2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 1 7 , 2022 * *

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

James Cole Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 8

- month sentence imposed upon revo cation of supervised release

.

Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Jackson ’s counsel has filed

a brief stating th at there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw

* 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

AUG 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 10095

as counsel of record. We have provided Jackson the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. See 1 8

U.S.C § 3583(e)(3) ; United States v. Henderson , 998 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir.

2021)

, cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 810 (2022)

.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED

.