alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14587]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

June 16, 2009.
    The Department of Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 22, 2009 
to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1254.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Conclusive Presumption of Wothlessness of Debts Held by 
Banks (FI-34-91) (Final).
    Description: Paragraph (d)(3) of section 1.166-2 of the regulations 
allows banks and thrifts to elect to conform their tax accounting for 
bad debts with their regulatory accounting. An election, or revocation 
thereof, is a change in method of accounting. The collection of 
information required in section 1.166-2(d)(3) is necessary to monitor 
the elections.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 50 hours.
    Clearance Officer: R. Joseph Durbala (202) 622-3634, Internal 
Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed (202) 395-7873, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.

Celina Elphage,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-14587 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### In the Matter of John Covington, Petitioner, v James Dollard et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 463]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter aha, to compel James Dollard, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to calendar a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County, and in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents James Dollard and Russ Rodriguez to turn over certain material, and applications by the petitioner for poor person relief and to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and that application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the application to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply is denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied as academic and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The instant proceeding has been rendered academic in light of the order of Justice Dollard dated May 22, 2006. Luciano, J.R, Rivera, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0605 

# FILED STATE OF MONTANA, 

### NOV 2 

### 3 2020

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. JIM CASSADY,

Defendant and Appellant. Bowen Greenw000 Clerk of Suprerne Court StRti= NAnntana ORDER

Counsel for the Appellant Jim Cassady filed a motion and briefasking to be allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counsel has been unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA,and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Cassady was granted time to file a response,but no response was filed. The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA,and Anders. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that could be raised in Cassady's appeal in this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord and to Cassady personally. DATED this a-

-9
- day ofNovember,2020.

ChiefJustice 11/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0605

## ;.;; ??-:4

% • Justices
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 667 

Providing for bipartisan subpoena authority during the 116th Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2019 

Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for bipartisan subpoena authority during the 116th 

Congress. 

1 Resolved, That during the 116th Congress: 

2 (1) In all matters referred to by the Speaker in 

3 her announcement of September 24, 2019, the chair4 man and ranking minority member of the Committee 

5 on the Judiciary or any other committee involved 

6 shall have coequal subpoena power. 

7 (2) Subpoenas may be authorized under this 

8 paragraph by the chairman and the ranking minor9 ity member acting jointly, or, if either declines to 

10 act, by the other acting alone, except that in the 

11 event either so declines, either shall have the right 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 667 IH 

1 to refer to the committee for decision the question 

2 whether such authority shall be so exercised and the 

3 committee shall be convened promptly to render that 

4 decision. 

5 (3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized 

6 may be issued over the signature of the chairman, 

7 or ranking minority member, or any member des8 ignated by either of them, and may be served by any 

9 person designated by the chairman, or ranking mi10 nority member, or any member designated by either 

11 of them. The chairman, or ranking minority mem12 ber, or any member designated by either of them 

13 (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to inter14 rogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law 

15 to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any 

16 witness. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60358

Summary Calendar

Candelaria Hernandez, 

Petitioner,

versus

William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A089 529 944

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Candelaria Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this 

court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that

denied her motion to reopen after concluding that she had not shown she 

pursued her rights with due diligence and thus was not entitled to equitable 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60358 Document: 00515574481 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2020
No. 19-60358

2

tolling of the period to file her motion to reopen. She argues that the BIA 

erred by not considering whether she had shown extraordinary 

circumstances to warrant equitable tolling and by alternately concluding that 

her failure to file a new application for relief also warranted denying her 

motion. 

A motion to reopen an order of removal must be filed within 90 days 

of entry of the order, but this time period is subject to equitable tolling. 

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 343-44 

(5th Cir. 2016). Equitable tolling is warranted when one establishes both that 

she has diligently pursued her rights and that extraordinary circumstances 

prevented timely filing. Id. at 344 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

Motions to reopen are highly disfavored, and one who brings such a 

motion has a heavy burden. Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, 726 F.3d 669, 672 (5th 

Cir. 2013). This court reviews an immigration court’s denial of a motion to 

reopen removal proceedings “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This 

standard dictates that the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen be upheld 

unless it is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the 

evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result 

of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

Hernandez has not met this stringent standard. Our review shows no 

abuse of discretion in connection with the BIA’s determination that she had 

not established due diligence and its concomitant denial of her motion to 

reopen. See id. Because she shows no abuse of discretion in connection with 

the BIA’s diligence determination, we need not consider her remaining 

Case: 19-60358 Document: 00515574481 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2020
No. 19-60358

3

arguments. See Flores-Moreno v. Barr, __ F.3d __, 2020WL4931651, 2 

(5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2020). The petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 19-60358 Document: 00515574481 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/22/2020
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Crown Partners, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


                                    /s/ Charles Smith
                                    Charles Smith, CEO, CFO

Dated: May 18, 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHNNY MOORE, AKA John Moore, Jr., 

AKA Steve, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10077 

D.C. No. 

2:15-cr-00226-GMN-PAL-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. 

Johnny Moore appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his 

guilty-plea conviction and 36-month sentence for interstate travel in aid of 

unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Moore’s counsel has filed a brief stating that 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-10077 

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of 

record. After striking Moore’s pro se supplemental opening brief, we provided 

him an opportunity to file a new pro se brief, which he has not done. No 

answering brief has been filed.

Moore waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver, except that the 

waiver is unenforceable as to the restitution order because Moore was not provided 

with any estimate of the restitution amount in his plea agreement. See United 

States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, our 

independent review of the record discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the 

uncontested restitution order. We accordingly affirm the restitution order. We 

dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United 

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

In trial counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal, which this court 

previously granted, she indicated that Moore wished to appeal on the ground that 

she provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the possibility that 

he would be required to register as a sex offender. Assuming trial counsel’s 

assertion is correct, such a claim cannot be addressed on direct appeal. See United 

States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
3 18-10077 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Within 7 days after the date of this disposition, former counsel must serve 

this disposition on Moore individually and provide this court with proof of such 

service.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
S04Y1586.

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KENNETH CAPPS.

(598 SE2d 478)

Per curiam.

This matter is before the Court on Respondent Richard Kenneth Capps’ Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License filed pursuant to Bar Rules 4-110 (f) and 4-227 (b) (2). In his petition, Capps admits that he violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), and 8.4 of the Georgia Rules *158of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar recommends the Court accept the petition as being in the best interests of the public. We agree.

Decided June 28, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Kellyn O. McGee, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Kenneth W. Krontz,*for Capps.

Capps admits that he was the closing attorney for a client’s two real estate transactions in October 2003 but he failed to pay taxes or homeowner’s insurance on the properties, thus causing them to be the subject of foreclosure proceedings. The client was forced to pay additional fees to have his taxes and insurance brought current. Similarly, in May 2003 Capps represented another client in the purchase of his home, pursuant to which the client was due a refund for overpayment. Capps wrote a check from his operating account, which was returned for insufficient funds, and then wrote a check from his trust account, which also was not honored. Capps has not refunded the client’s money. Although he represented in the client’s settlement statement that he paid the title insurance, Capps’ agency had been suspended. He had no authority to issue title insurance and did not pay the premium; thus, the title company had no obligation for the insurance. Capps subsequently reimbursed the client for the amount on the settlement statement. Additionally, four checks issued in March 2003 from Capps’ trust account were overdrafts. Finally, Capps closed the sale of a third client’s house but did not send the payoff funds of over $93,000 to the bank. Capps admits that his conduct in these matters violated the Bar Rules and accordingly, he proposes to voluntarily surrender his license to practice law, which is tantamount to disbarment.

We have reviewed the record in this matter and agree that accepting Capps’ petition is the proper action for his violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, the name of Richard Kenneth Capps hereby is removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit
31.1


CERTIFICATION




I, Daniel
Imperato, certify that:




1.   I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imperiali,
Inc.;




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




3.   Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




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


(a)    Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;




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




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




5.   The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


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




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




Date:  July
      15, 2009
              /s/Daniel
      ImperatoDaniel
      ImperatoPrincipal
      Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 668 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 668

 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) directing 
certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of 
 the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient 
    grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its 
  Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the 
           United States of America, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 31, 2019

Mr. Cole submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) directing 
certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of 
 the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient 
    grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its 
  Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the 
           United States of America, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House 
resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) directing 
certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of 
the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient 
grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its 
Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the 
United States of America, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
the resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order against the 
resolution and against its consideration are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the resolution and shall not exceed four hours 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Rules. After general debate the resolution shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the resolution for amendment, the Committee shall 
rise and report the resolution to the House with such amendments as may 
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
on the resolution and amendments thereto to adoption without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO




18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Legacy Reserves LP (the “Partnership”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Legacy
Reserves GP, LLC (the "Company”), the general partner of the Partnership,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.






/s/ Cary D.
      Brown
            
            
            /s/ Steven H.
      PruettCary D.
      Brown
            
            
            Steven H.
      PruettChief
      Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
              
              
              November 6, 2009
            
            
            President,
      Chief Financial Officer and
              Secretary
              
              November 6, 2009






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Report.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 24, 2020

NO. 03

- 19

- 00743

- CV

Pedro Hernandez and Courtney Hernandez, Appellant s

v.

Pella Corporation, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUST ICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on July 16, 2019 . Having reviewed

the record , the Court holds that appellants have not prosecuted their appeal and did not comply

with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Theref ore, the Court dismisses the appea l for want of

prosecution. A ppellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the

court below.