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

National Indian Gaming Commission 

FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER 

CHANGUDRA SMITH 

Changudra Smith is the Financial Services Manager for the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC). As the Financial Services Manager, Smith supervises gaming 

management contract reviews, background investigations billing, calculation of the 

fingerprint rates, preparation of the annual budget for the finance group, procurement 

support for the entire agency, obligation and expenditure processing for agency’s 

operation and maintenance activities, implementation of the agency’s space 

management requirements, and tracking of NIGC’s civil fines. 

Smith became the Financial Services Manager in January of 2023. Prior to her role as 

the Financial Services Manager, Smith served as a Budget Analysis and Financial 

Specialist for the Department of Defense (DOD). While at DOD Smith processed 

intricate travel vouchers, prepared late travel reports, analyzed journal transactions, 

and created execution budget taskers for Congressional Staffers. In her prior service 

with the NIGC, Smith served as the Financial Analyst in the Division of Finance from 

2018 to 2021. Smith began her career in 2014, as a Financial Analyst Trainee for the 

United States Postal Service and eventually became a Business & Industry Analysis 

for the Postal Service. While at the Postal Service Smith oversaw the yearly 

allocation of 68 billion in revenue budget plan dollars to over 31,000 post offices. 

Smith has been the receipt of numerous leadership, recognition, and impact awards including in 2019 when she was the 

recipient of NIGC’s Star Award for her automation of the background investigation billing process. 

Smith is a Chartered Financial Analyst® (CFA®) charterholder. Smith graduated Cum Laude from the University of 

Maryland, College Park in 2013 with a Bachelor of Science in Finance & Marketing and a minor in Technology 

Entrepreneurship. 

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 3/28/2024
No. 5025.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### JOHN MOPPERT vs. E. J. TRENCHARD, ET ALS.

Chas. Louque for plaintiff and appellee.

A. L. Ponder for defendant and appellant.

Howe, Fenner, Spencer and Cocke attorneys.

B. J. Meyer attorney.

GODCHAUX, J.

The appellant in this case having *421filed a motion asking that the appeal taken herein by them be dismissed at their cost, and it not appearing that the appellee has filed any answer to the appeal, it is ordered that this cause be dismissed at the' cost of the appellant.

May 16, 1910.

Appeal dismissed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 18, 2010

d0615 

# Order

June 18, 2010

141121

LLOYD WALTON WILLIAMS, JR. Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141121 COA: 293536 Genesee Circuit Court Family MARIA CRISTINA CHAVEZ-WILLIAMS , Division: 03-250460-DM Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 13, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D 2 3

- 1224 LT Case No. 2021

- CF

- 3675

_____________________________

B RANDON J AMES ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador , Judge

.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Allison A. Havens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney G eneral, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Novem ber 7, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

W ALLIS , J AY , and E ISNAUGLE , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### Havemeyer *v.*Wright.*

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

January 24, 1881.)

1. Severable Contract—Tendee of Paet Performance—Refusal to Accept—Afbtdavit of Defence.

A. contracted to deliver to B. 700 tons of rails, to be shipped from Europe, in February, in ono or more vessels, each cargo to he paid for on delivery. A. shipped one cargo of 342 tons, which arrived in May, but B. refused to accept it. In a suit brought by A. against him, B. filed an affidavit of defence setting forth that A. had not shipped the residue at the time he tendered the tost cargo, and had never intended to ship them. *Held,*a sufficient defence.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit Of defence.

This was an action of *assumpsit*by Havemeyer *&*Yigelius against Peter Wright & Sons. Plaintiffs filed a copy of the following contract:

With the above was filed a copy of invoice presented to defendants June 7,1880, for 342 700-2240 tons at $43.50,— $14,890.59,—with United States certificate of weight; imported in ship Livingston, which arrived May 8, 1880.

*774Defendants filed an affidavit of defence setting forth *inter*alia—

“Before the tender of the delivery of the goods for which this action is brought the defendants had ascertained that the plaintiffs did not intend to comply with their contract, a copy of which is filed in the cause, in this: that the residue of the 700 tons old Trails mentioned in the contract had never been shipped by plaintiffs, nor were ever intended by them to be shipped or delivered to defendants; and they knew this when they sought to make defendants accept and pay for a part of the goods agreed to be bought and sold for this reason. When the delivery was tendered of the goods for the price of which this action was brought, the same were rejected and refused by the defendants. ”

*Samuel G. Perkins,*for the rule.

The contract is severable, and plaintiffs are entitled to recover the price of the cargo for which suit is brought. *Scott*v. *Kittanning Coal Co.*89 Pa. St. 231; *Morgan*v. *McKee,*77 Pa. St. 228; *Lucesco Oil Co.*v. *Brewer,*66 Pa. St. 351; note to *Cutter*v. *Powell,*2 Smith’s Lead Cas. (5th Am. Ed.) 45; *P., W. & B. R. Co.*v. *Howard,*13 How. 307; *Perkins*v. *Hart,*11 Wheat. 237; *Sickels*v. *Pattison,*14 Wend. 257.

*R. C. McMurtrie, contra,*was not called upon.

*

 Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

McKennan, C. J.

Beyond all question this is an entire contract, and to hold that tender of a part takes away the right of rescission, when the affidavit says that there was not only an impossibility of delivery as respects the balance but an intention not to deliver, would be to go beyond anything that, the English courts have held.

’ Buie discharged.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6148

ANNIS RECARDO LLOYD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

CONNIE JORDAN; JUDGE J. HOCKENBURY; JUDGE LANIER; RODDEY 

BROWN, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:08-ct-03143-H) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Annis Recardo Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Annis Recardo Lloyd appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action 

alleging violation of his constitutional rights. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Lloyd v. Jordan, No. 5:08-ct-03143-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2009). 

We deny Lloyd’s motion for injunctive relief and 

motion to compel. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1636

DINO MENBERE,

Petitioner,

versus

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney

General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A76-452-081)

Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 13, 2007

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott E. Bratton, MARGARET WONG & ASSOCIATES, LPA, Cleveland, Ohio,

for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,

Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Ethan B. Kanter, Senior

Litigation Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dino Menbere, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”) denying as untimely her motion to reopen. We deny the

petition for review. 

An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days

of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.A.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A),(C) (West 2005 & Supp. 2007); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). We review the Board’s denial of a motion

to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007);

INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales,

450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen

must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes

do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations

disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th

Cir. 1990) (en banc). In explaining the degree of deference given

to the agency’s discretionary review, this court has observed that

the decision to deny a motion to reopen “need only be reasoned, not

convincing.” Id. at 310 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial

is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry v. Gonzales,

445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007). 
- 3 -

There is no doubt that Menbere’s motion to reopen was

untimely. We further find no error with the Board’s finding that

Menbere did not show due diligence excusing the late filing.

Accordingly, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion to reopen. 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
| POWERS OF ATTORNEY |
|--------------------|

----

| /s/ Gary W. Miller       Gary W. Miller, Chairmanof the Board and CEO(Principal Executive Officer)  |  February 9, 2010   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| /s/ G. Patrick CorydonG. Patrick Corydon, Executive VicePresident (Finance) and CFO(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)   |  February 9, 2010   |
| /s/ Joseph DeVito      Joseph DeVito, President and COO                                             |  February 9, 2010   |
| /s/ Stuart D. Bilton    Stuart D. Bilton, Director                                                            |  February 9, 2010   |
| /s/ Otto N. Frenzel, IV   Otto N. Frenzel, IV, Director                                                            |  February 9, 2010   |
| /s/ John M. O’Mara  John M. O’Mara, Director                                                                |  February 9, 2010   |
| /s/ Thomas H. PatrickThomas H. Patrick, Director                                                                                  |  February 9, 2010   |
| /s/ John Pigott  John Pigott, Director                                                                                       |  February 9, 2010   |

----

| /s/ Kenneth D. SacksKenneth D. Sacks, Director    | February 9, 2010                                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Nathan ShapiroNathan Shapiro, Director        | February 9, 2010                                  |
| /s/ Norton ShapiroNorton Shapiro, Director        | February 9, 2010                                  |
| /s/ Robert ShapiroRobert Shapiro, Director        | February 9, 2010                                  |
| /s/ Steven A. ShapiroSteven A. Shapiro, Director  | February 9, 2010                                  |
| /s/ John D. WeilJohn D. Weil, Director                 | February 9, 2010                                  |
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14174]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 18, OMB Control No. 3235-0121, SEC File No. 270-105.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management Budget 
for extension and approval.
    Form 18 (17 CFR 249.218) is used for the registration of securities 
of any foreign government or political subdivision on a U.S. exchange. 
The information collected is intended to ensure that the information 
required to be filed by the Commission permits verification of 
compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public 
availability of the information. Form 18 takes approximately 8 hours 
per response and is filed by approximately 5 respondents for a total of 
40 annual burden hours. It is estimated that 100% of the total 
reporting burden is prepared by the company.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information 
on respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher/CIO, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General 
Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92c2c0d3cddff3fbfef0fdead2e1f7f1bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8adad8cbd5c7ebe3e6e8e5f2caf9efe9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: June 10, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14174 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1368]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee 
Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a 
meeting on February 4, 2009, Room T2-B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b 
(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that 
relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the 
ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 12 noon--1 p.m.
    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related 
matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam 
Duraiswamy (Telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only 
during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. 
Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS 
meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2008, (73 
FR 58268-58269).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

    Dated: January 14, 2009.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E9-1368 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         3342552
<SECURITIES>                                   1832007
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5174559
<PP&E>                                        24030803
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                29205362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           138226
<BONDS>                                         582677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    28484459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  29205362
<SALES>                                        1407217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1607324
<CGS>                                           312241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   312241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                524528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 770555
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             770555
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    770555
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    15.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    15.64
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             463
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   463
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,330
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,341)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       463
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13898]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,718]


Weyerhaeuser Company, iLevel Dallas Sawmill, Dallas, OR; Notice 
of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 31, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Weyerhaeuser 
Company, iLevel Dallas Sawmill, Dallas, Oregon. The workers at the 
subject facility produced rough planed lumber.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13898 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***TIER A-INTERNAL AUDIT (AIA)***

Page 3 of 6