alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONNECTING TO NIFC WIRELESS NETWORK - GUEST 

MOBILE DEVICES: Samsung (Andriod)

These instructions are intended for NIFC Guests that would like to use the NIFC Wireless Guest Network

using their mobile device (Samsung - Android). NOTE: Minor variations from these instructions may occur 

depending on the device and its software version.

 

 

Step 4: NIFC-Guest will then display 

“Connected”. Step 2: Select “Wi-Fi” and then 

select “NIFC Guest” from the list.

Step 1: Step 3: Select “Connect”. Swipe down from the Samsung Logo to bring up 

your settings menu as seen below. Then select the Gear.

 

1a.)Swipe

down from 

the 

Samsung 

logo.

1b.)Select 

the Gear.

Contact the NIFC Help Desk at 1-208-387-5734 (x5734 internal) for assistance.
CONNECTING TO NIFC WIRELESS NETWORK - GUEST 

MOBILE DEVICES: Samsung (Andriod)

 

 

 

Step 5: Open up Google Chrome on your device. 

Note: Google Chrome is required and can be 

downloaded from Google Play. Try to go to a public 

website e.g. http://www.google.com. If the page 

“Connection is not private” displays, select 

“ADVANCED and select the “hyperlink “on the screen 

that follows; if not, it will advance to the next step.

Step 7: Fill in the form with your sponsor’s 

information, your name and email. Check 

the “I accept the terms of use”, and select 

“Register”

Step 6: Select “Create Guest Account” on 

the NIFC Wi-Fi login page that appears. 

NOTE: Sponsorship is REQUIRED to access 

the NIFC-Guest Wi-Fi network. 

Your Sponsor is the Government 

employee you are working with. 

Contact the NIFC Help Desk at 1-208-387-5734 (x5734 internal) for assistance.
CONNECTING TO NIFC WIRELESS NETWORK - GUEST 

MOBILE DEVICES: Samsung (Andriod)

Note: You cannot change the password so please save this information. This account will be valid for 30 

days. To log back in, repeat steps 1 and 2, then sign in using your email address and the password you were 

provided. 

Step 8: Your account info will be emailed 

to you. The screen will display your account 

information and refresh every 30 seconds 

by itself. Note: The Account Status is

currently “Disabled”. 

Step 9: When the request is approved and 

email sent to you, the page will refresh and 

the Account Status will display “Enabled”. 

Select “Log In” to complete the connection 

process.

Contact the NIFC Help Desk at 1-208-387-5734 (x5734 internal) for assistance.
Order entered June 28, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00498-CR

BRADRICK JERMAINE COLLINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA17-18552-F

ORDER

This appeal is REINSTATED.

On May 31, 2018, the Court entered an order abating this case to the trial court for 

findings of fact regarding whether an interlock device had been placed in appellant’s vehicle as a 

condition of community supervision or as a condition of appellant’s appeal bond. The trial court 

has filed the necessary findings.

Because the trial court has found that the interlock device was placed as a condition of 

appellant’s appeal bond, we need not reconsider our May 31, 2018 order dismissing for want of 

jurisdiction appellant’s May 29, 2018 emergency motion requesting removal of interlock device.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Iulia FUNIERU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70094.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 14, 2009.

Louis A. Gordon, Esq., Law Offices of Louis A. Gordon, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

*588District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BYBEE and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Because petitioner was able to freely leave Romania, and her mother continues to reside there without incident, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioner failed to establish eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). The dearth of case citations in the BIA’s opinion does not violate due process because the IJ cited numerous cases in her decision, which the BIA effectively adopted. *See Kataria v. INS,*232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen petitioner’s asylum and withholding claims because petitioner’s own evidence suggests that conditions in Romania are improving. Petitioner thus failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief on the basis of changed country conditions. *See Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008); *Perez v. Mu-kasey,*516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008). The IJ and the BIA could not have violated due process by failing to consider country conditions prior to 2005 because the IJ specifically mentions evidentiary submissions discussing pre-2005 country conditions, and states that “[i]f country conditions have changed significantly since 1997, it appears to be in a favorable direction with a stronger and more tolerant society.”

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner is ineligible for NACARA relief because she admits arriving in the United States after the relevant cutoff date. *See Munoz v. Ashcroft,*339 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir.2003). NACARA’s cutoff dates do not violate due process or equal protection. *See Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir.2002); *Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 603 (9th Cir.2002).

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hai Guang Zheng, Appellant.

Submitted January 10, 2011;

decided January 18, 2011

*739Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         386,701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               550,373
<PP&E>                                       2,994,709
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,328,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,269,778
<BONDS>                                      5,100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,060,906)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,328,070
<SALES>                                      1,473,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,473,477
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,169,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             131,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                265,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            265,354
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   265,354
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.92
        

</TABLE>
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 *Title:*
                     April 2010 Current Population Survey Supplement on Child Support. *OMB No.:*
                     0992-0003. *Description:*
                     Collection of these data will assist legislators and policymakers in determining how effective their policymaking efforts have been over time in applying the various child support legislation to the overall child support enforcement picture. This information will help policymakers determine to what extent individuals on welfare would be removed from the welfare rolls as a result of more stringent child support enforcement efforts. *Respondents:*
                     Individuals and households. Annual Burden Estimates
Instrument
Number of 
                             respondents
Number of 
                             responses per  
                             respondent
Average 
                             burden hours  
                             per response
Total burden 
                             hoursChild Support Survey
41,300
1
0.03
1,239Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,239
 *Additional Information:*
                     Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, 
                    *Attn:*
                     ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: 
                    *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* *OMB Comment:*
                     OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 
                    *Fax:*
                     202-395-7245, 
                    *Attn:*
                     Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: October 21, 2009. Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. E9-25712 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
#### THRAILKILL v. CALLOWAY (two cases).

Nos. 775 and 776.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

Feb. 11, 1946.

*123Thomas S. Myers, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

James H. Anderson, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.

DARR, District Judge.

The plaintiffs have motions seeking an order striking the seventh defenses of the defendant’s answers. The question in each case is the same and one memorandum will suffice.

The suits are for personal injuries said to have resulted from a collision of one of defendant’s trains with the automobile in which the plaintiffs were riding. The complaints make allegations of negligence.

The defendant’s seventh defenses are that settlement has been made with the owner of the automobile. Further charging that writings have been made wherein an agreement was recited' binding the plaintiffs as having fully compromised and forever settled the damages involved, the defendant called upon the plaintiffs to produce these agreements. The plaintiffs produced the agreements.

Whether the motions to strike constitute proper procedure may be a question. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appear to provide for striking of pleadings or portions of pleadings by way of penalties and under Rule 12(f), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provide that upon motion “the court may order any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter stricken from any pleading.”

Ordinarily I would think that a portion of an answer setting up an affirmative defense requiring proof, which, if sustained, would be a defense, could not be reached by motion to strike. If there is no issue about the facts so plead in answer, then a motion for summary judgment would be proper.

However, in these cases the seventh defenses call upon the plaintiffs for the evidence itself, which evidence has been produced. Then it might be said that the agreements become a part of the answers and the defenses offered are not in fact defenses to the action. If the charges in the answers, including the agreements, do not make defenses, this portion of the answers would be immaterial and subject to motion to strike.

But in any event, I feel sure that the question is fairly raised, and the defendant has presented his side of the controversy.

I think that the paper writings are unambiguous and are for the Court to construe. My construction is that the writings are plainly covenants not to sue.

The person who drafted these instruments was very careful to come within the rulings of the Appellate Courts of Tennessee wherein the verbiage renders the instruments covenants not to sue. Byrd v. Crowder, 166 Tenn. 215, 60 S.W.2d 171; Fergason v. Crawford, 24 Tenn.App. 646, 148 S.W.2d 45, certiorari denied by Supreme Court 1941.

Orders will be prepared in each case striking from the answers the seventh defenses raised therein.
Exhibit 10.4.3



THORNBURG MORTGAGE, INC.



AMENDMENT NO. 3

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

2002 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE
PLAN



Dated as of January 25, 2005



Pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Amended and Restated 2002
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the Plan), the Board of Directors of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) hereby revises and amends the terms of the Plan as follows, effective January 25, 2005:



Section 3.6.1 of the Plan shall be amended by adding the
following sentence at the end of the Section:



The term of service on the Advisory Board and the term of continued participation in the incentive compensation distributions under the Plan under Section 3.6.2, shall be limited to a maximum of ten (10) years from the date of joining
the Advisory Board.



The Plan, as amended
herein, is in all respects ratified and affirmed on behalf of the Company by its Board of Directors, including a majority of its non-employee Directors.



The Company has caused this Amendment No. 3 to the Plan to be executed in the name and on behalf of the Company by an officer of the
Company thereunto duly authorized as of the date written above.



THORNBURG MORTGAGE, INC. a Maryland corporationBy:

/s/ Larry A. GoldstoneLarry A. GoldstonePresident and Chief Operating Officer
#### Joseph Perl et al., Appellants, v Mehmood Meher et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 11, 2011;

decided April 28, 2011

Motion by New Yorkers for Fair Automobile Insurance Reform for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
NO. 07-08-0059-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

APRIL 14, 2008

______________________________

SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND/OR SMITH SERVICES

AND HARLEY TYLER, 

Appellants

V.

ISRAEL BUSTAMANTE,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 286th DISTRICT COURT OF COCHRAN COUNTY;

NO. 06-04-3964; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

 _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellants, by and through their attorney, represent to the court that they no longer

wish to pursue this appeal and ask the Court to dismiss it. Appellee agrees to this motion.

Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2), vacate the trial court’s judgment, and dismiss the case.

TEX R. APP. P. 43.2(e) (stating that an appellate court may vacate a trial court’s judgment

and dismiss the case). Our having done so at the request of all the litigants, no motion for

rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Brian Quinn

 Chief Justice
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Mark L. Weinstein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 

 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Dated: November 14, 2007 /s/ Mark L. Weinstein   Mark L. Weinstein   President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT
32.01





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Daniel J. DormanName:
                Daniel
      J. DormanTitle:
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:
                March
      25, 2010





The
foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it
by reference.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Sandston Corporation and will be retained
by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2726 

To modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site 

in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National 

Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Minuteman Missile Na5 tional Historic Site Boundary Modification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION. 

7 Section 3(a) of the Minuteman Missile National His8 toric Site Establishment Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 

9 Public Law 106–115) is amended— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2726 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as 

2 paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(3) VISITOR FACILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE

6 SITE.—The historic site shall consist of a visitor fa7 cility and administrative site located on a parcel of 

8 land that— 

9 ‘‘(A) consists of approximately 25 acres of 

10 Forest Service land located in the Buffalo Gap 

11 National Grasslands; 

12 ‘‘(B) is located north of exit 131 on Inter13 state 90 in Jackson Country, South Dakota; 

14 and 

15 ‘‘(C) is generally depicted on the map enti16 tled ‘Minuteman Missile National Historic Site 

17 Boundary Modification’, numbered 406/80,011, 

18 and dated July 17, 2009.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS