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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 10167]

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Murillo: The Self-Portraits,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Frick Collection, New York, New York, from on or about November 1, 2017, until on or about February 4, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

 Alyson Grunder,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-22492 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge 

Penisimani Tuipulotu 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
EXHIBIT 32



                          EYE CATCHING MARKETING CORP.
                              A Nevada Corporation

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eye Catching Marketing Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Robert Hemmerling,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Devinder Randhawa, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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 Company.




Dated February 12, 2004                     /s/ Robert Hemmerling
                                            ----------------------
                                            Robert Hemmerling,
                                            President and C.E.O.


                                             /s/ Devinder Randhawa
                                             ---------------------
                                             Devinder Randhawa,
                                             C.F.O. and Secretary
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60300

(Summary Calendar)

__________________

EDDY MORALES, CLAUDIA SALVATIERRA,

 Petitioners,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A72 449 541, A29 925 562)

- - - - - - - - - -

February 9, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Nicaraguan citizens Eddy Morales and Claudia Salvatierra

assert that the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") abused its

discretion in denying their applications for asylum and withdrawal

of deportation. Salvatierra also challenges the denial of her

application for suspension of deportation. We have reviewed the

record and find that the BIA's adoption of the Immigration Judge's

decision denying Morales's and Salvatierra's applications was
2

supported by substantial evidence. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d

185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994).

The petition for review is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-90860) of the Featherlite Inc. 1994 Stock Option
Plan and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (333-75255) of our report, dated
February 8, 1999, on the consolidated financial statements of Featherlite, Inc.,
which report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


McGladrey & Pullen, LLP


Rochester, Minnesota
April 2, 2001
#### MAURO MOTORS INC., et al., Movants-Appellants, v. OLD CARGO LLC, aka Chrysler LLC, aka Chrysler Aspen, aka Chrysler Town & Country, aka Chrysler 300, aka Chrysler Sebring, aka Chrysler PT Cruiser, aka Dodge, aka Dodge Avenger, aka Dodge Caliber, aka Dodge Challenger, aka Dodge Dakota, *90aka Dodge Durango, aka Dodge Grand Caravan, aka Dodge Journey, aka Dodge Nitro, aka Dodge Ram, aka Dodge.

No. 10-3933-bk.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 22, 2011.

Leo Donofrio, Stephen W. Pidgeon, Pidgeon & Donofrio GP, Everett, WA, for Appellants.

Brett J. Berlin, Jeffrey B. Ellman, Beth R. Heifetz, Kevyn Duane Orr, (Corinne Ball, on the brief), Jones Day, New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

*AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER*

Appellants are automobile dealers whose dealership contracts with Chrysler were terminated by Chrysler as part of its bankruptcy and restructuring. They moved the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to reconsider its decision to allow Chrysler to exclude these contracts from the assets it sold to Fiat and to then reject these contracts after the sale under 11 U.S.C. § 365. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented for review.

A motion to reconsider a judgment must be rejected if “there was an opportunity to have the ground now relied upon to set aside the judgment fully litigated in the original action.” *Leber-Krebs, Inc. v. Capitol Records,*779 F.2d 895, 899 (2d Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellants present no evidence or ai’guments in this collateral attack that could not have been presented in a timely appeal from the bankruptcy court’s original decision. Having failed to appeal from that decision, Appellants may not now attack it collaterally absent newly discovered evidence of fraud on the court. No such evidence has been presented, so Appellants’ motion to reconsider was properly denied.

As to the merits of Appellants’ claims, they are utterly frivolous. We reject these claims on the merits for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court below.

The bankruptcy court and the district court correctly concluded that there was no fraud on the court. As a result, we hereby AFFIRM the district court’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to reconsider.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3131 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3131

   To make participation in the American Community Survey voluntary, 
            except with respect to certain basic questions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2009

    Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself and Mrs. Bachmann) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
 and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make participation in the American Community Survey voluntary, 
            except with respect to certain basic questions.

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

SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION IN AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY TO BE VOLUNTARY.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no criminal 
penalty shall apply, under section 221 of title 13, United States Code, 
or any other provision of law, for refusing or willfully neglecting to 
answer questions in connection with the survey, conducted by the 
Secretary of Commerce, which is commonly referred to as the ``American 
Community Survey''.
    (b) Exceptions.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall--
            (1) apply in the case of a question that elicits only 1 or 
        more of the items of information described in subsection (c); 
        or
            (2) be considered to waive any penalty imposed by reason of 
        conduct described in section 221(b) of title 13, United States 
        Code.
    (c) Information Described.--The items of information described in 
this subsection are as follows:
            (1) The name of the respondent.
            (2) Contact information for the respondent.
            (3) The date of the response.
            (4) The number of people living or staying at the same 
        address.
                                 <all>
```
Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 16, 2022

In t he 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00551

- CV

KENYA BAGLEY

, Appellant

V.

PA MANUFACTURERS INS . CO. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 21

- 09785

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Carlyle, and Justice Garcia

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Appellant ’ s brief in this case is overdue. Af ter appellant failed to timely file a

brief, we directed appellant by postcard dated November 8, 2022 to file the brief

within ten days and cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a)(1). To

date, appellant has not filed a brief or otherwise corresponded with the Court

regarding the status of this appeal.– 2

–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See id. ; 42.3(b), (c).

22 0551f.p05 /Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

KENYA BAGLEY, Appellant

No. 05

- 22

- 00551

- CV V.

PA MANUFACTURERS INS. CO., Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 21

- 09785. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.

Chief Justice Burns and Justice Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 16 th day of December

, 2022

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LILIAN MARIBEL TORRES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72801

Agency No. A070-882-532

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Lilian Maribel Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming

an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen deportation

proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

JUN 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72801

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de

novo claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres’ motion to reopen

on the ground that she failed to show that personal service of an Order to Show

Cause was insufficient to provide her with notice of her responsibility to notify the

immigration court of her changes of address. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)(ii). 

Nor did the agency abuse its discretion in finding unpersuasive Torres’ contention

that she could not have received adequate notice because she did not provide any

address to immigration officials, because where an alien fails to provide an

address, no written notice of hearing is required. 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(2) (repealed

1996).

It follows that Torres has not established a due process violation. See Lata

v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error to prevail

on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>
                             CANCELLATION AGREEMENT

THIS  AGREEMENT  is  made and entered into this 17th day of August, 2001, by and
between  Christine Cerisse (the "Agent") as agent for the Shareholders as define
below  and  United  Management,  Inc.,  a Nevada corporation (the "Corporation).

                                    RECITALS

A.     Shareholders  (the  "Shareholders")  of  the  Corporation  holding in the
aggregate  500,000  common  shares  (the  "Shares")  desire  that  the Shares be
cancelled.

B.     The  Shareholders have given Christine Cerisse their power of attorney to
sign  any  and  all  documents  in  their  behalf,  including  any and all stock
certificates,  for  the  purpose  of  canceling  the  Shares.

C.     The  Shareholders  and  number  of  Shares held by each are listed on the
Exhibit  A  attached  hereto.
                                   AGREEMENTS

In consideration of the recitals which are made a part of this agreement and the
mutual  covenants  and  agreements  herein  contained  and for good and valuable
consideration  the  receipt of which is acknowledged, the agent on behalf of the
Shareholders  and  the  Corporation  agree  as  follows:

     1.       Cancellation  of Shares.  Agent hereby requests that the Shares be
              ------------------------
cancelled  and  the Corporation agrees to cancel the Shares as authorized by the
Shareholders.

     2.     Documents.  The  Agent  agrees  to  acquire  and  deliver  to  the
            ---------
Corporation  any  and  all documents necessary to consummate the cancellation of
the  Shares including delivery of stock certificates executed in a manner as may
be  required  by  the  Corporation  and/or  the  transfer  agent  as applicable.

     3.     Further  Assurances.  The  Corporation  agrees  to  take any and all
            -------------------
actions  reasonable  necessary  to  consummate  the  cancellation of the Shares.

     4.     Warranty  of  the Agent.  The Agent warrants to the Corporation that
            -----------------------
she  has  the  authority of the Shareholders to enter into this agreement and to
bind  them to this agreement and to enter into and execute any and all documents
that  will be delivered to the Corporation or to the transfer agent in behalf of
the  Shareholders.

 /s/  Christine  Cerisse
-----------------------
Christine  Cerisse  as  Agent  for  the  Shareholders

United  Management,  Inc.

 /s/  Ray  Hawkins
------------------
By_Ray  Hawkins,  its  President____
   -----------------------------
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1693** 

In re: WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON , Appellant ,

--------------------------------
WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON , Debtor

– Appellant ,

v. LINDA W. SIMPSON, U. S. Bankruptcy Administrator ,
Trustee

– Appellee ,

a nd

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC , Party

- in

- Interest

– Appellee , and

M&T BANK,
Creditor

– Appellee,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv
- 00347

- RJC )

Submitted : October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 20162 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Wellesley K. Clayton , Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Cox, Jr. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP , Charlotte, North Carolina; Lacey Meredith Moore , HUTCHENS LAW FIRM , Charlotte, North Carolina; Linda Wright Simpson , UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR , Charlotte, North Carolina , for Appellees

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Wellesley K. Clayton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his appeal f rom the bankruptcy court ’ s order converting his case from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 proceeding

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement. ” Bow l e s v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
November 23, 2015 . The notice of appeal was filed on June 15,

2016 . Because Clayton failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                     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 Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), William
Turner, as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President - Finance of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Company.

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.



|Date: March 2, 2007 | /s/ William Turner
                      William TurnerChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President - Finance
|------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID ZEBROWSKI, a/k/a Dog, a/k/a Mad Dog,

a/k/a Lewis Brady, a/k/a David E. Stewart,

a/k/a Eric Smith,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CR-96-41, CA-98-350)

Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Zebrowski, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, David John

Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Zebrowski seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and his motion seeking reconsideration. Insofar as

Zebrowski raises issues in his Rule 60(b) motion concerning claims

raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we find Zebrowski did

not show extraordinary circumstances warranting granting the Rule

60(b) motion filed approximately three years after the denial of

his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we conclude that Zebrowski has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED