alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"id":1043,"date":"2015-02-06T11:37:21","date_gmt":"2015-02-06T15:37:21","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1043"},"modified":"2018-08-14T11:37:58","modified_gmt":"2018-08-14T15:37:58","slug":"fmc-is-conducting-maintenance-on-servcon-this-weekend","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/fmc-is-conducting-maintenance-on-servcon-this-weekend\/","title":{"rendered":"FMC is Conducting Maintenance on SERVCON This Weekend"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>February 6, 2015<\/div>\n<p>Please be advised, the Commission will be conducting maintenance on SERVCON on Saturday, February 7, 2015. Beginning at 9:00am Eastern,\u00a0intermittent outages will occur\u00a0until 5:00pm Eastern. The outage will only impact the SERVCON application.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>February 6, 2015 Please be advised, the Commission will be conducting maintenance on SERVCON on Saturday, February 7, 2015. Beginning at 9:00am Eastern,\u00a0intermittent outages will occur\u00a0until 5:00pm Eastern. The outage will only impact the SERVCON application.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1043"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1043"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1043\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1044,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1043\/revisions\/1044"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31081]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP02-118-000]


High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 11, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 4, 2001, High Island Offshore System, 
L.L.C. (HIOS) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective 
date of January 4, 2002:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 2
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 171
Third Revised Sheet No. 172

    HIOS states that the tariff sheets are being filed to implement the 
ability for HIOS to enter into negotiated rate agreements.
    HIIOS states that copies of its filing has been mailed to each of 
HIOS' customers and the affected state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sec. 385.214 or Sec. 385.211 of the Commission's rules 
and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Sec. 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may 
also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' 
link, select ``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31081 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 1, 2016

t0525

Order 

Clerk

June 1, 2016

152660

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152660

COA: 322857 

Tuscola CC: 13-012672-FH

TAMMY LOUISE HARBIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Not for P ubl ication in West's Fe deral Report er Citation Limit ed P ursuan t to 1st C ir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s

For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-1919 JAMES M. DELUCIA, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Judge]
Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Campbell and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.
Michael J. Kelley on brief for appellant. Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney and Anita Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

March 17, 2006Per Curiam . After carefully considering the b r iefs and

record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination t h a t the appellant’s pain and visual impairments engendered no severe, nonexertional limitation. He g g a r t y v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 990 (1 Cir. 1 9 9 1); Oritz v. Sec’y Health & st Human Serv., 890 F. 2 d 5 2 0 ( 1 Cir. 1989). Although the medical st record for the insured period documented pain ands e vere impairment, it documented no severe, nonexertional limit. Moreover, the ALJ cou l d reasonably conclude that the appellant’s activities were inconsistent with any such limitation. Substantial evidence supported the decision. Rodriquez v. Sec’y Health & Human Serv., 647 F.2d 218 (1 Cir. 1981). st Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

-2-
Exhibit 31.1
                               CERTIFICATION

I, Judi Irving certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form
10-K of HemaCare Corporation.

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
the 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 registrant's 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;

 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:  November 16, 2004


/s/ Judi Irving
_______________________
Judi Irving
Chief Executive Officer
#### Yodit Desta TEAME, Alay Mana Tarkegn, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 07-13749

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 21, 2008.

Z. Zareefa Kahn, Hollywood, FL, for Petitioners.

David V. Bernal, Jeffery R. Leist, US-DOJ, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Yodit Desta Teame and Alay Mana Tarkegn petition this Court for review of the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b), (c). The Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration judge denied the applications *937based on a finding that Teame and Tarkegn were not credible. We deny the petition.

We review credibility determinations under the substantial evidence test. *Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*463 F.3d 1228, 1230-31 (11th Cir.2006). Adverse credibility findings will be reversed “only if the evidence ‘compels’ a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” *Id.*at 1231 (quoting *Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)). An adverse credibility determination may be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods in the applicant’s oral and written statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii).

Substantial evidence supports the decision that Teame and Tarkegn were not credible. *See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft,*257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir.2001). Teame and Tarkegn presented inconsistent and implausible testimonies about their marriage, Teame’s country of birth, where they had lived and worked, their church attendance, and whether they had suffered persecution on account of their religion. The immigration judge and Board provided specific, cogent reasons to support the adverse credibility determination. *Chen,*463 F.3d at 1231. Teame and Tarkegn offer no explanation for their inconsistencies that would “ ‘compel’ a reasonable fact finder” to reverse that credibility finding or to conclude that they established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. *Id.*

Teame and Tarkegn’s petition for review is DENIED.

PETITION DENIED.
#### Maria Guadalupe BALTAZAR GARCIA; Miguel Morfin Bernabe, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75893.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008 *.

Filed May 22, 2008.

Maria Guadalupe Baltazar Garcia, San Jose, CA, pro se.

Miguel Morfin Bernabe, San Jose, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Thankful T. Vanderstar, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Guadalupe Baltazar Garcia and Miguel Morfin Bernabe, married natives *531and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. *Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004). We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review and remand.

An intervening change in the law requires us to remand on the issue of Bernabe’s continuous physical presence. In *Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales,*we held that administrative voluntary departure under threat of deportation breaks the accrual of continuous physical presence only where the alien is informed of the terms of the departure and knowingly and voluntarily accepts them. *See*439 F.3d 614, 619 (9th Cir.2006); *see also Tapia v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.2005). The nature of Bernabe’s departures is unclear from the record.

We therefore remand for the agency to reconsider the issue of Bernabe’s continuous physical presence.

The adverse credibility finding against Baltazar Garcia was based mainly on an inconsistency between her cancellation application and her testimony about her entry date. Baltazar Garcia was represented by Walter Pineda, who resigned from the practice of law with charges pending in 2006. Because Pineda’s role in preparing Baltazar Garcia’s application is unclear, and because she provided a witness who corroborated her testimony regarding her entry date, we remand for the agency to reconsider its adverse credibility determination.

Petitioners’ contention that the agency violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of physical presence is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2
Form 10-KSB
Pacific Alliance Corporation
File No. 33-78910-C



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
Pacific Alliance  Corporation  (the "Company")  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the fiscal  year  ended  December  31,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report")  for the  purpose  of
complying with Rule  13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 (the  "Exchange  Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.

     I, David Knudson, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

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

     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of Pacific Alliance
Corporation.


Dated:     April 23, 2004               By: /s/ David Knudson
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            David Knudson
                                            Principal Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donald Ray DAVIS, also known as Dog Man, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30014

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Donald Ray Davis, Big Spring, TX, pro se.

*946Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Donald Ray Davis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Davis has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Robert NANCE, a/k/a Robert Nance, a/k/a Thomas James Alvin, a/k/a T.J. Alvin, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6357.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.

James Robert Nance, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Robert Nance appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for in*720junctive relief in which he seeks certain changes to his presentence report. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Nance,*No. 4:06-cr-00027-RAJ-JEB-l (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 5, 2010, and entered Feb. 8, 2010). We deny Nance’s motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense, and 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.*
JACK C. ALEXANDER

,
Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5642

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

An appeal from the Florida Real Es t ate Commission

. Juana Watkins

, Director

.

David M

. Berman and Jed Berman, B.C.S., of Infantino and Berm an, Winter Park

, for Appellant.

Marisa G. Button, Chief Appellate Counsel, Chevonne T. Christian, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, a nd WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Rotonics Manufacturing Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Robert E. Gawlik, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

 

2.       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 
| /s/ ROBERT E. GAWLIK               |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert E. Gawlik                   |
| President/Chief  Executive Officer |

----
#### BFC GAS COMPANY, LC; BFC Electric Company, LC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GYPSUM SUPPLY CO., doing business as Gypsum Supply Co. of Cedar Rapids, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-1031.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2015.

Filed: Jan. 26, 2016.

Kathryn S. Barnhill, Barnhill & Associates, West Des Moines, IA, Mark Anthony Critelli, Critelli Law Firm, PC, Urbandale, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellants.

Philip A. Burian, Simmons *&*Perrine, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

[Unpublished]

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action involving negligence claims, BFC Gas Company and BFC Electric Company appeal from the order and judgment of the District Court1 excluding their expert witness opinions and granting Gypsum Supply Company’s motion for summary judgment. Following careful review, we affirm these rulings for the reasons given in the District Court’s order. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. To the extent appellants challenge the subsequent order imposing sanctions, we lack jurisdiction because appellants did not timely appeal this order. *See Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,*440 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir.2006). We deny the pending motion to supplement the record.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 23.0





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








As the independent registered public accountants of Chicopee Bancorp, Inc., we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-136002 and No. 333-144420 of our report dated March 15, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Chicopee Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Chicopee Bancorp, Inc.








/s/ Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker


Portland, Maine


March 15, 2011
<PAGE>
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Numbers 33-
68510, 33-67618, 33-57246, 33-52920, 33-42841, 33-39166, and 33-32673),
Form S-8 (Numbers 33-63220, 33-63218, 33-41712, 33-13416, 33-21545, 33-82788,
33-63106, and 33-60789), and Form S-4 (Number 333-15705) of Epitope, Inc. of
our report dated October 28, 1996, except for Note 13 as to which the date is
November 14, 1996, November 25, 1996, December 12, 1996, and December 26,
1996, relating to the financial statements of Epitope Medical Products group,
Agritope group, and Epitope, Inc., which appears under Item 14 of this
Form 10-K.




Price Waterhouse LLP

Portland, Oregon
December 30, 1996