alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11220]

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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

Time and Date: 9 a.m. (Eastern Time) May 18, 2009.

Place: 4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.

Status: Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the 
public.

Matters To Be Considered: 

Parts Open to the Public

    1. Approval of the minutes of the April 20, 2009 Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    a. Participant Activity Report.
    b. Investment Performance Report.
    c. Legislative Report.
    3. Web site Re-Design Project.
    4. Mid-year Budget Review.

Parts Closed to the Public

    5. Personnel.

Contact Person for More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: May 8, 2009.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. E9-11220 Filed 5-11-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
```
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 2, 2014

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01236-CV

IN RE JUANITO MARSHALL, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-53984-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Lang

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus contending that the Dallas County district 

clerk has failed to transmit his “Motion to Obtain Documents and Trial Records in Forma 

Pauperis” to the district court and requests that the Court grant relief against the respondent 

district clerk. This Court has mandamus jurisdiction over the district clerk only when the actions 

of the district clerk interfere with the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction. TEX. GOV'T CODE 

ANN. § 22.221 (West 2010); In re Phillips, No. 05–14–00683–CV, 2014 WL 2609217, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas June 10, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Chumbley, No. 05–13–

00881–CV, 2013 WL 3718070, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 12, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op). Relator has not asserted facts that would, if proven, establish that the district clerk’s actions 

interfere with the jurisdiction of this Court. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 

Supp. 2010); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. 

proceeding) (“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to 
–2–

are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.”). Accordingly, this Court lacks 

mandamus jurisdiction. We DISMISS the petition.

. 

141236F.P05

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,743]


Lionbridge US, Inc, Waltham, MA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 3, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by an Oregon One Stop Operator on behalf of the workers of 
Lionbridge US, Inc, Waltham, Massachusetts.
    Since the state official in Oregon is not a duly authorized 
representative of the workers in Massachusetts, the petition is deemed 
invalid.
    Additionally, the petitioner has requested that the petition be 
withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of April 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10923 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Agus Setiadi LUNARDI; Selly Tanuwihardja; V.L., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-1152.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 25, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 16, 2006.

Howard T. Mei, Law Offices of Howard T. Mei, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petition*501ers. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Regina S. Moriarty, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Agus Setiadi Lunardi is the principal asylum applicant for himself, Selly Tanuwihardja, his wife, and Y.L., their minor child, all natives and citizens of Indonesia. Lunardi petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2006), the immigration judge’s decision is the final agency determination. *See Camara, v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir.2004).

Lunardi challenges the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of an adverse eligibility determination, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Lunardi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief he seeks.

Similarly, as Lunardi does not qualify for asylum, he is also ineligible for withholding of removal. *See Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum— even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” *Id.*

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 Lunardi does not challenge the Board’s denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, this claim is abandoned. *See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir. 1999).
667 A.2d 694

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN A. POLCARI, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

December 13, 1995.

ORDER

MARTIN A. POLCARI of WAYNE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, and who thereafter consented to his temporary suspension by Order adopted by this Court on November 28, 1995, and who remains suspended at this time, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARTIN A. POLCARI is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1411 V

UNPUBLISHED

A LAINA GUYMON

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: March 1, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX , for P etitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On September 13, 2019

, Alaina Guymon filed a petition for compensation under

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury relate d to vaccine

administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of an influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine administered on

October 5, 201 8 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of

the Office of Special Masters.

On March 1, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that

P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.

Specifically, R espondent “ has concluded that [P]etitioner suffered a right SIRVA injury as

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012 ).2

defined by the Vaccine Injury Table

. ” Id. at 5 . Respondent further agrees that Petitioner

suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six mon ths

. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3932 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3932

  To limit the amount of funds available to the Aeronautics Research 
       Mission Directorate of the National Aeronautics and Space 
  Administration during fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years thereafter.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2006

 Mr. Feingold introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To limit the amount of funds available to the Aeronautics Research 
       Mission Directorate of the National Aeronautics and Space 
  Administration during fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years thereafter.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FUNDS AVAILABLE TO AERONAUTICS RESEARCH 
              MISSION DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
              ADMINISTRATION DURING FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND FISCAL YEARS 
              THEREAFTER.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total amount of 
funds available to the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration during any fiscal year 
after fiscal year 2006 may not exceed $724,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10900 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CLIFTON ONEIL NEMONS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-102-ALL-D

- - - - - - - - - - July 31, 1998 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Clifton Oneil Nemons has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, (1967), and we have independently reviewed counsel's brief and the record and have found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Lester S. Caesar, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Global Gold
Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2007;

2) Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly
Report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 Quarterly Report is being prepared;

b) [Reserved]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the 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 control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2007                                   /s/ Lester S. Caesar
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Lester S. Caesar
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.13  



	State of Delaware

Secretary of State

Division of Corporations

Delivered 08:06 AM 04/10/2007

FILED 08:15 AM 04/10/2007

SRV 070415240 – 4331469 FILE
 	 	 	 	 




 
 

CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
  OF
  MOLSON COORS INTERNATIONAL LP    
    


        This Certificate of Limited Partnership of Molson Coors International LP (hereinafter referred to as the
"Partnership") is being executed by the undersigned for the purpose of forming a limited partnership pursuant to the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited
Partnership Act. 


	1.
	The
name of the Partnership is Molson Coors International LP.



	2.
	The
formation of the Partnership is to become effective on April 10, 2007 at 9:44 a.m., EDT.



	3.
	The
address of the registered office of the Corporation in the State of Delaware is 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, and the
name of the Corporation's registered agent at that address is Corporation Service Company.



	4.
	The
name and business address of the general partner as follows: 





Molson
Coors Brewing Company

1225 17th Street, Suite 3200 – MCCC

Denver, CO 80202 






        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, constituting the sole general partner of the Partnership, has caused this Certificate of Limited Partnership to be duly executed as of the
10th day of April, 2007. 



	 	 	Molson Coors Brewing Company,

a Delaware corporation
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  SAMUEL D. WALKER      
 Samuel D. Walker,

Global Chief Legal Officer and

Global Secretary









 
 

STATE OF DELAWARE
  AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF
  LIMITED PARTNERSHIP    
    


        The undersigned, desiring to amend the Certificate of Limited Partnership pursuant to the provisions of Section 17-202 of the Revised Uniform Limited
Partnership Act of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify as follows: 


FIRST:
The name of the Limited Partnership is Molson Coors International LP. 


SECOND:
Article 4 of the Limited Partnership shall be amended and restated in its entirety by deleting the existing text and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following: 




"The
names and business, residence or mailing address of each of the general partners are as follows: 


Molson
Coors International General, ULC

1100 – 1959 Upper Water Street

P.O. Box 2380

Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2E5, Canada" 





        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned executed this Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership on this 13th day of April, 2007. 



	 	 	Molson Coors International General, ULC,

a Nova Scotia unlimited liability company
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  KELLY L. BROWN      
 Kelly L. Brown,

Secretary





	 	 	 	 	State of Delaware

Secretary of State

Division of Corporations

Delivered 05:52 PM 04/13/2007

FILED 05:54 PM 04/13/2007

SRV 070434630 – 4331469 FILE
 













QuickLinks


CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF MOLSON COORS INTERNATIONAL LP

STATE OF DELAWARE AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
#### Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Respondent, v Michael Rose, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[974 NYS2d 422]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered May 10, 2012, awarding plaintiff the aggregate amount of $560,052.77 on its claim for an account stated against defendant Michael Rose, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered May 7, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the account stated claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its claim for an account stated “by showing that its client received, retained without objection, and partially paid *454invoices without protest” *(Scheichet & Davis, P.C. v Nohavicka,*93 AD3d 478, 478 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Miller v Nadler,*60 AD3d 499 [1st Dept 2009]).

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case because it submitted no expert opinion that its retainer agreement and the legal services it rendered were fair and reasonable is unpreserved. Were we to reach the merits, we would find it unavailing. It is not part of a plaintiff’s prima facie case on a claim for an account stated to show the reasonableness of the retainer agreement or its legal services *(see e.g. Scheichet & Davis., P.C.*at 478; *Miller*at 499). Indeed, in *Miller,*we found that “[plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rules on retainer agreements . . . does not preclude it from suing to recover legal fees for the services it provided” *(Miller*at 500), and “[i]n the context of an account stated pertaining to legal fees, a firm does not have to establish the reasonableness of its fee” *(Lapidus & Assoc., LLP v Elizabeth St., Inc.,*92 AD3d 405, 405-406 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

If a defendant client’s legal malpractice claim is intertwined with a plaintiff law firm’s claim for legal fees, the plaintiff will not be entitled to summary judgment on its account stated claim. However, if the malpractice claim is not so intertwined, courts are not precluded from granting the plaintiff summary judgment *(see Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Ackerman,*280 AD2d 355, 356 [1st Dept 2001]).

Here, it was not an improvident exercise of the motion court’s discretion to rule, in effect, that defendant had waived his right to raise malpractice by not filing an amended answer by the deadline set by the court *(see Quintanna v Rogers,*306 AD2d 167, 168 [1st Dept 2003]). Furthermore, the record shows that plaintiff performed a great deal of work that was unrelated to the purported malpractice.

Defendant’s argument that the judgment improperly calculates prejudgment interest is unpreserved. Were we to consider it, we would note that defendant cites no authority in support of his position. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Ren wick, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 31198(U).]