alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PRIORITY 1

Active performance of regulatory duties

PRIORITY 2

Engaging in ongoing meaningful tribal consultations

PRIORITY 3

Staying ahead of the technology curve

PRIORITY 4

Supporting a strong workforce both in-house and among our regulatory partners

PRIORITY 5

Strengthening dialogue and relationships with all relevant stakeholders

Regulating Indian gaming to promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency 

and strong tribal governments; to maintain the integrity of the Indian gaming industry; 

and to ensure that tribes are the primary beneficiaries of their gaming activities.

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITES

OUR MISSION

Act within appropriate agency 

authority to address and mitigate 

activity that jeopardizes the integrity 

of Indian gaming and, by extension, 

the valuable self-determination tool 

that it represents

PRINCIPLE 1

Engage in sound regulation without 

unnecessarily stymieing the 

entrepreneurial spirt of tribes

PRINCIPLE 2

Swiftly act on anything that 

jeopardizes the health and safety of 

the public at gaming establishments, 

including employees and patrons

PRINCIPLE 3

Protect against anything that 

amounts to gamesmanship on the 

backs of tribes

PRINCIPLE 4
#### Dionne R. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 08-2277.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2009.

Decided: May 12, 2009.

Dionne R. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Sydney Edmund Rab, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

*206Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dionne R. Jones appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Defendant and the order granting in part and denying in part her motion to reconsider that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Defendant and the order granting in part and denying in part reconsideration for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Jones v. Va. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,*No. 1:08—cv-00166-TSE-TRJ, 2008 WL 4223615 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 10, 2008 & entered Sept. 11, 2008). 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.
Biography

National Indian Gaming Commission

DEPUTY CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER

DANA DINKINS

Dana Dinkins is the Deputy Chief Compliance Officer at the National Indian Gaming 

Commission. As the Deputy Chief Compliance Officer, Dinkins will monitor 

compliance of tribal gaming operations in accordance with the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) Regulations and 

Commission directives. 

Prior to becoming Deputy Chief Compliance Officer in December 2020, Dinkins 

served as Deputy Assistant Director of Compliance since January 2020 and as 

Compliance Officer in the NIGC’s Oklahoma City Region since September 2009. 

Dinkins has assisted the NIGC in ensuring tribal compliance with the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act and by providing technical assistance and training across the nation. 

Prior to joining the NIGC, Dinkins worked with the Citizen Potawatomi Nation 

Gaming Commission as a criminal and regulatory investigator for 2 years as well as 

serving as a tribal police officer for the Citizen Potawatomi Nation Police Department 

for 5 years. 

Dinkins is the recipient of the 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Customer 

Service Award for identifying support improvements in services provided to NIGC stakeholders. 

Dinkins received a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice Administration and Management in 2008 from the University 

of Central Oklahoma. 

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 8/31/2021
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Misael VERGARA-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41750.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis*481triet of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Juan Misael Vergara-Gonzalez, Pecos, TX, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender, appointed to represent Juan Misael Vergara-Gonzalez (Vergara-Gonzalez) on appeal, has requested 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). Vergara-Gonzalez has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, 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.
Attached is the newest CJIS Information Letter, our newest request form, and instructions for your 

review. Please read over the Information letter so you will be aware of the changes that will be taking 

place. 

These changes will assist those individuals who experience difficulty in providing good quality 

fingerprints. We ask that you pay particular attention to the 2nd page, bullet 4 under "Fingerprint 

Impressions are Determined to be Illegible." 

Currently, the CJIS Division processes both L0008 messages:

1) The Quality of the characteristic is too low to be used.

2) The Quality of the characteristic is too low to be used. Candidate(s) were found. Please resubmit a 

new set of fingerprints for comparison to the candidate(s). 

Beginning in July, we will no longer process the L0008 rejection code that does not contain the language 

"Candidate(s) were found." 

During processing, all fingerprint submissions receive a simultaneous biometric and biographic search.

When the L0008 message “The Quality of the characteristic is too low to be used” is returned, it means 

that during the simultaneous biometric and biographic search it was determined that the individual had 

no criminal history based on the biographic data provided on the fingerprint card, therefore it is 

unnecessary for contributors to request a Name Check. 

It is at each individual agency’s discretion whether they wish to accept the biographic results without 

resubmitting a new set of fingerprints for biometric comparison.

It continues to be the FBI’s position that the biometric comparison of fingerprints is the most accurate 

way to determine the identity of an individual.

If you have questions or need assistance, please contact us.
MR. CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK, FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

301 FANNIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002

RE: Case No. 15-0323 DATE: 4/28/2015

COA #: 01-14-00233-CV TC#: 2013-04900

STYLE:DAVID DOTSON

v. TPC GROUP, INC. AND TPC GROUP, LLC

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the

motion for extension of time to file petition for

review under TEX. R. APP. P. 53.7(f) in the abovereferenced case. The petition for review is due to be

filed no later than May 27, 2015. 

FILE COPY
Exhibit
32(b)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K (the “Report”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian X. Tierney,
the chief financial officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that,
based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Brian X.
Tierney


Brian X.
Tierney


Chief
Financial Officer








February
26, 2010








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF

CHRISTINIA THOMAS

Christinia Thomas is a member of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and serves as the 

Deputy Chief of Staff for the National Indian Gaming Commission, an independent 

federal regulatory agency established within the Department of the Interior. As such, 

Christinia assists the Chief of Staff with managing the day-to-day operations of the 

Commission, including the compliance, finance, public affairs and technology 

divisions. In addition, she works to implement the Commission’s directives relating 

to government-to-government consultation, training and technical assistance and 

enforcement efforts.

Thomas brings to the NIGC over 20 years of gaming experience, which includes 

serving as Executive Director at the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Gaming Regulatory 

Authority located in central Minnesota. Prior to joining the NIGC, Thomas served as 

the Command Center Operations Officer at Bismarck-Mandan Security, Inc. where 

she oversaw operations of the Tesoro Refinery Command Center.

Thomas also served on the NIGC’s Tribal Advisory Committee in 2012, which 

provided valuable insight and advice on proposed rulemaking during the NIGC’s regulatory review process.

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 more than 500 gaming establishments operated by 250 tribes across 29 states.

Updated 1/29/2024

Biography

National Indian Gaming Commission
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40792

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

CEDRICK FOWLER,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:12-CR-27-2

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cedrick Fowler appeals the 245-month sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

5 kilograms or more of cocaine. Fowler argues that the 2-level dangerous 

weapon enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), was not warranted 

because the evidence reflects that he was never seen physically possessing a 

firearm. He contends that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement does not 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40792 Document: 00512645745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2014
No. 13-40792

preclude him from raising this issue on appeal because he did not receive a fair 

sentencing hearing. 

The Government moves for summary dismissal of the appeal because 

Fowler’s appeal is barred by the waiver of appeal in the plea agreement and 

also because Fowler failed to file a timely notice of appeal. In the alternative, 

the Government requests an extension of time to file its appellate brief.

The Government’s motion is well-taken on both grounds. Fowler’s notice 

of appeal was not timely filed, and when the Government objects on that 

ground, this court must enforce this claims-processing rule. See Eberhart v. 

United States, 546 U.S. 12, 18 (2005). Even if we overlooked the untimeliness 

of the notice of appeal, the record reflects that Fowler knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, see United States v. 

Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994), and that his argument is barred by 

the appeal waiver. Therefore, the Government’s motion for summary dismissal 

is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s alternative 

motion to extend the time to file its brief is DENIED as moot. 

2

 Case: 13-40792 Document: 00512645745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2014
#### REHRER et al. v. SERVICE TRUCKING CO., Inc. et al.

Civ. No. 1445.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

Nov. 18, 1953.

George L. Sands, Wilmington, Del., and William H. Bennethum (of Morford, Bennethum & Marvel), Wilmington, Del., for plaintiffs.

William Prickett, Wilmington, Del., for defendants.

LEAHY, Chief Judge.

This action was initiated in the state court by the filing of a summons and a complaint.- In accordance with the state rule, plaintiffs evidenced a choice for trial by jury by endorsing a demand therefor on the face of the complaint. Before answer, defendants' effected removal to this court. A true copy of the original complaint was filed here pursur ant to Section 1446 of Title 28, U.S.C. Defendants answered, adopting the paragraphing of the complaint, and the ease was placed on the jury list. Plaintiffs made no independent request in this court for trial by jury within the ten days following notice of removal. Defendants move to-strike the case from the jury list because of this alleged omission.

Motion denied. Of timely record in this court and properly docketed is the complaint in this action. It bears the notation “Trial By Jury Is Demanded” immediately below its caption. This literally satisfies the requirements of Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 81(c), 28 U.S.C. Its effect is diminished neither by its being a true copy nor its presence in this court being due to defendants’ filing of it. Upon removal, the complaint became a pleading in this court and governs the action thereafter. Indeed, defendants answered it paragraph by paragraph and thereby raised the main issues to be resolved at trial.

On principle, too, I think this result correct. Plaintiffs clearly demonstrated a desire for trial by jury. This they did by an affirmative demand for it, not by silence in the state court. No plausible reason is apparent to me why a second request is necessary or why a waiver of jury trial should be imputed after removal to a party who positively demanded it just prior to removal. Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, 1952 Supp., Sec. 132, p. 75. .Defendants have been aware of the demand for jury trial since their acceptance of service of the complaint in the state action. The very papers defendants copied and brought to this court carry a banner heading demanding trial by jury. I can see merit in their-position if no demand had ever, been made.. Cf. Gallagher v. Delaware & Hudson R. Co., D.C., 15 *114F.R.D. 1. I see none in their present one.

For complete decisiveness, I add one final, perhaps superfluous observation. An alternative application to my discretion under F.R. 39(b) has been made by plaintiffs. If all other argument had failed, I would have freely exercised discretion to grant the desired trial by jury.
Consultation Agenda

River Spirit Casino Resort

Ball Room 1 & 2

8330 Riverside Pkwy

Tulsa, OK 74137 

March 23, 2017

3:00 - 5:30 pm

I. Welcome and Opening prayer/Blessing.

II. Introduction of Commission and brief statements.

III. Introduction of NIGC Staff and Tribal leadership and representatives.

IV. Discuss format for the consultation

o Questions/comments will be taken after each topic presentation.

V. Opening statements/comments for those who cannot stay for the entire consultation.

VI. Housekeeping items

o Scheduled to go from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm – however may end early if all topics 

covered and there is no tribal comments

o Meeting will be transcribed, when speaking please state name/organization and 

designees from your tribal governments – not open to the public or media.

VII. Topic order

1. 25 C.F.R. Part 547 Grandfathered Class II Gaming Systems

VIII. Comment period will end 30 business days after the Northwest area consultation.

Page 1 of 1
#### JUDSON v. JUDSON.

Civil Action No. 19212.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

June 15, 1943.

*337John J. O’Brien, of Washington, D. G, for plaintiff.

W. C. Burton, of Washington, D. G, for defendant.

EICHER, Chief Justice.

The Judicial Code provides that no writ of ne exeat shall be granted unless the defendant “designs quickly to depart from the United States.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 376.1 But the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in a divorce proceeding, is exercising its local and not federal jurisdiction, and the authority upon which, in such a case, it may issue the writ of ne exeat is found in the Code. Murphy v. Paris, 57 App.D.C. 19, 16 F.2d 515. Title 11, Sec. 315 of the District Code 1940 authorizes the District Court to issue “writs of * * * ne exeat, and all other writs known in common law and equity practice that may be necessary to the effective exercise of its jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The writ of ne exeat is no longer to be considered a prerogative writ, but is an ordinary or mesne process of equity. May v. May, 146 Ga. 521, 91 S.E. 687; Greisner *v.*Greisner, 86 N.J.Eq. 76, 97 A. 287; Murphy v. Paris, supra. And no writ of ne exeat shall be granted unless a suit in equity be commenced. In re Cohen, D.C. 136 F. 999.

In this case the service of the original process was had on the resident manager of the apartment-hotel where the parties had resided.

Rule 4(d) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that service shall be made “ * * * by leaving copies thereof (summons and complaint) at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein”.

Counsel for plaintiff rely on Skidmore v. Green, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 529 and Rovinski v. Rowe, 6 Cir., 131 F.2d 687, but in each of these cases the service was had on a member of defendant’s family, and not a complete stranger who happened to live in the same building.

It follows, therefore, that the service of the original process was not valid and the writ of ne exeat, being a mesne process, must be quashed. The writ of ne exeat is not in itself a remedy. It is a means to effectuate a remedy, viz., by keeping a party within the jurisdiction of the court.

Counsel for plaintiff argues that by giving bond, defendant has entered a general appearance and is thus within the jurisdiction of the court.

Even before the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which abolished special appearances, it has been held that the giving of the usual security is not a waiver of the right to question the propriety of the issuance of the writ of ne exeat and does not preclude defendant from applying to vacate the- writ and cancel his bond. 45 C.J. 602 citing Jesup v. Hill, 7 Paige, N.Y., 95.

It would appear therefore that the service of process, the writ of ne exeat and the bond should be cancelled, leaving only the complaint which counsel for defendant has not successfully attacked. It is so ordered.

1

 See 1948 Revision, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651.
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2017-05-01 11:35:36","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"}],"value":"2017"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"6"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["10"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["29"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["22"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2017","quarter":"Q2"}