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

National Indian Gaming Commission

SUPERVISORY AUDITOR

GENA CAVINESS

Gena Caviness is a Supervisory Auditor for the National Indian Gaming Commission, 

working in the Tulsa, OK regional office. Gena directly supervises the day-to-day 

work of the Audit Team, including conducting Internal Control Assessments and other 

audit services, compiling yearly Gross Gaming Revenues from submitted annual 

audited financial statements, performing analysis of financial statements and AgreedUpon Procedures (AUP) reports, developing training material, and providing technical 

assistance and training all to ensure regulatory compliance, gaming integrity, and that 

tribes are the primary beneficiaries of their gaming revenues.

Prior to working with the NIGC, she worked as a Compliance Manager for the 

Cherokee Nation Gaming Commission where she managed a team of 27 employees 

ranging from compliance officers to gaming regulatory agents. Her role as a 

Compliance Manager was to enforce regulation. Another key role was to update and 

write new regulations as needed. Caviness also reviewed and conducted compliance 

audits of various departments and activities within the gaming operations. 

Gena Caviness was named as one of the 2018-2019 Emerging Leaders of Gaming and Global Gaming Business 

Magazine 40 under 40. 

Gena Caviness completed three years at Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK where she studied criminal 

justice, communications, and accounting. 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act created the National Indian Gaming Commission to support tribal self-sufficiency and the integrity of Indian gaming. 

NIGC oversees the efficient regulation of 524 gaming establishments operated by 248 tribes across 29 states.

Updated 8/17/2021
94-1776.

#### State ex rel. Patterson v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 93APD03-318. On motion to vacate and/or motion for relief from judgment. Motions denied.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. H ERI BERTO SU A REZ- A G U I LA R, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10213 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 0 -cr-0 0 1 8 4 -E JG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia E dw a r d J . G a r c i a , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H er i bert o S uare z- A gu i l arappeal s f rom the 57 -m on th sent ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for bei ng a deport ed al i en foun d i n the U ni t ed St a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED MA R 01 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10213 2 § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f

f i rm. S u a r e z - A g u ila rc o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le because the di stri ctcourtdi d n otvarydo w nw ar d from the G ui del i nes r ange based on the “ s t a l e ne s s ” of

hi s pr i orc onvi c t i on, w hi c h s e rve d a s the pr e di c a t e f ora16- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) . H e a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d b yf

a ilin g to v a ryd o w n w ar d b a s e d o n ap r o p o s e d a m e n d m e n t to U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) tha tw a s pe ndi ng a tthe t i m e he w a s s e nt e nc e d. I n l i ghtof

the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i nc l udi ng the s e r i ous ne s s of S ua r e z - A gui l a r ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i on a nd hi s m ul t i pl e pr i orde port a t i ons , the w i thi nG u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is n o t s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) ; G al l v. U ni ted Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). F u rth er m o re , th e d istrict co u rt’s f a i l ur e t o gr a ntthe r e que s t e d va r i a nc e t o r e f l e c tthe pr opos e d a m e ndm e ntt o the G u id e lin e s d idn o t r e s u lt in as u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . See U ni ted S ta te s v . R u iz -A

p o lo n io , 657 F . 3d 907, 918 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( “ T ha tthe C om m i s s i on ha s pr om ul ga t e d anot - y e t - a dopt e d a m e ndm e nttha ti s ve ryl i ke l yt o be a dopt e d a nd th at w o u ldre su ltin re d u ce d G u id elin es ra n g es d o es n o t ren d era d istrict co u rt’s fa i l ure t o g ranta var i ance subst ant i vel y unrea sonabl e. ”) . AF F I RME D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8528

MICHAEL L. JORDAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LONNIE M. SAUNDERS; RON ANGELONE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-1215)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Jordan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion to vacate the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Jordan

v. Saunders, No. CA-95-1215 (W.D. Va. Nov. 17 & 30, 1995). See

generally Hanvey v. Blankenship, 631 F.2d 296, 297 (4th Cir. 1980)

(prison officials do not violate inmate's Constitutional rights

when they seize contraband). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2881 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2881

      To provide greater technical resources to FCC Commissioners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 14, 2009

 Ms. Snowe (for herself and Mr. Warner) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To provide greater technical resources to FCC Commissioners.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FCC Commissioners' Technical 
Resource Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF TECHNICAL STAFF.

    Section 4(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
154(f)(2)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the 
following new sentence: ``Each commissioner may also appoint an 
electrical engineer or computer scientist to provide the commissioner 
technical consultation when appropriate and to interface with the 
Office of Engineering and Technology, Commission Bureaus, and other 
technical staff of the Commission for additional technical input and 
resources, provided that such engineer or scientist holds an 
undergraduate or graduate degree from an institution of higher 
education in their respective field of expertise.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,843]


Solar World, Vancouver, WA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 23, 2009, in response to a worker 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Solar World, Vancouver, 
Washington.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13459 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

AMELIA SIBUG MACASPAC, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 02-1699 U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney

General,

Respondents. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-513-082)

Submitted: October 15, 2002

Decided: October 29, 2002

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Amelia Sibug Macaspac, Petitioner Pro Se. George W. Maugans,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore,

Maryland; Allen Warren Hausman, Assistant Director, Emily Anne

Radford, Blair Timothy O’Connor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Amelia Sibug Macaspac, a native and citizen of the Philippines,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny her

motion to reopen removal proceedings. Macaspac first contends that

counsel was ineffective in failing to file an updated asylum application on her behalf by the deadline established by the Immigration

Court. Because Macaspac failed to exhaust administrative remedies

by raising this claim before the Board, we find that we are without

jurisdiction to consider it in the context of this appeal. See Stewart v.

INS, 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir. 1999); Bernal-Vallejo v. INS, 195

F.3d 56, 64 (1st Cir. 1999); Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th

Cir. 1990). 

Macaspac next asserts that the Board, in affirming the IJ, abused

its discretion in declining to grant the motion to reopen due to Macaspac’s failure to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum. We

have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that this finding does not amount to an abuse of discretion. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d

304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a) (2002). 

We accordingly affirm the Board’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED

2 MACASPAC v. INS
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer
            Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
            As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, John E. Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the “Form 10-K”) upon my best knowledge and belief fully
            complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.



|                         |                                                                                                              | 
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated: November 12, 2009 | /s/ John E. Yetter                                                                                           | 
|                         | John E. Yetter, CPA
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer) |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>             THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION
                     EXTRACTED   FROM  ASHLAND   INC.'S  ANNUAL  REPORT  TO
                     SHAREHOLDERS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,
                     1997,  WHICH  RESTATED  THE YEAR ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30,
                     1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
                     SUCH  ANNUAL  REPORT  AND  NOTE B TO THE  CONSOLIDATED
                     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT EXPLAINS THE RESTATEMENT.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                                      52
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                                25
<INVENTORY>                                                703
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         2,535
<PP&E>                                                   6,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                           2,880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           6,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    2,048
<BONDS>                                                  1,828
<COMMON>                                                    64
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                293
<OTHER-SE>                                               1,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             6,853
<SALES>                                                 11,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        12,038
<CGS>                                                   10,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           10,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             33
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         14
<DISCONTINUED>                                              10
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                                24
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .08
        

</TABLE>
Please turn off cell phones during meeting sessions 

- 1 - 

National Indian Gaming Commission

Public Meeting Agenda 

Open to the Public 

Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 

Time: 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm 

Location: Mystic Lake Casino & Hotel 

 2400 Mystic Lake Blvd., Prior Lake, MN 

Agenda items may be taken out of sequence at the discretion of the Chair

1) Call to Order/Commission Opening Remarks 

2) Chief of Staff Report 

a. Training & Technical Assistance 

i. 2012 YTD Training Statistics 

ii. Objectives for 2012 

iii. New Training for Final Rules 

b. Agency Operations Review 

i. IT Transition 

ii. Office Utilization and Assessment 

iii. Policies & Procedures 

c. Other business 

i. Staffing 

ii. NEPA 

1. Contract with BIA 

2. Publication of Categorical Exclusions 

3) General Counsel Report 

a. Regulatory Review 

i. Final Rule Effective Dates 

ii. Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

iii. Regulatory Review Schedule and Consultation 

4) New Business 

a. Agency Policies and Procedures Adoption 

b. Final Rules up for Federal Register submission 

i. Part 502 – Definitions of Enforcement Action 

ii. Part 537 – Management Contract – Background Investigations 

iii. Part 571 – Issuance of Investigation Completion of Letters 

iv. Part 573 – Enforcement Actions 

5) Public Comment (sign-in required)
Please turn off cell phones during meeting sessions 

- 2 - 

6) Announcements and Adjournment 

a. Upcoming Consultations 

b. Upcoming Training Events 

c. Next Public Meeting 

In accordance with 25 U.S.C. 2704 (f), the National Indian Gaming Commission meets at least once every four months as a body. 

Upon advance request, the Commission will pursue reasonable accommodations to enable persons with disabilities to attend 

Commission meetings. Questions or comments pertaining to the agenda and requests for special accommodations should be directed 

to: Rita Homa at (202) 418-9807. 

To promote efficiency and as an accommodation to all parties involved, the agenda may be modified and items taken out of order.

Additionally, the public meeting may end early once all agenda items are completed. In keeping with the President’s Memorandum on 

Transparency and Open Government, this agenda and the recorded transcript of these proceedings will be available online for review 

at www.nigc.gov. 

Persons wishing to make a statement at a Commission meeting may sign a sheet at the entrance to the meeting room and will appear 

during the final agenda item titled “Public Comment”. This segment is intended for an individual to make a brief statement to the 

Commissioners supported by fact, on current issues, which are within the jurisdiction of the NIGC. It is not intended to be an open 

forum for debate. However the Commission may choose to address any issues or comments that are raised.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Donald W. Jewell, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Sport-Haley, Inc.,certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/Aof Sport-Haley, Inc.;

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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 oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)                                 Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)                                  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

4.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)                                  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)                                 Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  January 12, 2006

 

 
| /s/ DONALD  W. JEWELL       |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
| Donald  W. Jewell                |
| Interim  Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                  |        |  |

 

1

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Milton Canada, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 869]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., at suppression hearing; A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J., at plea and sentencing), rendered March 10, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]), which forecloses review of his suppression claims. As an alternative holding *(see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]), we reject defendant’s claims on the merits. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41105.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Hernandez-Hernandez on appeal from the revocation of his supervised release has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hernandez-Hernandez has not responded to counsel’s motion.

Our review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous *461issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.