alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 7, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60716

Summary Calendar

 

ISHRAT EJAZ; SHAHID EJAZ,

Petitioners,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA Nos. A74 403 455

A74 403 467 

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ishrat Ejaz and her minor son Shahid Ejaz, both citizens of

Pakistan, petition this court for review of the final order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals which summarily affirmed the

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications

for asylum and withholding of removal. Shahid’s claims are

dependent upon the resolution of Ishrat’s claims. We directly

review the IJ’s decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d

830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). 
No. 02-60716

-2-

Ishrat contends that the IJ erred by requiring her to

provide corroboration of her claims in the absence of a negative

credibility finding. Although we recognize that the BIA’s

corroboration rule has not been addressed by this court, because

the IJ also provided an alternative basis for denying asylum, we

decline to address the corroboration issue in this case.

Ishrat argues that the IJ erred by finding that she had not

demonstrated a sufficient nexus between her political opinion and

the persecution she and other members of her family allegedly

suffered. Ishrat also argues that the IJ erred in finding that

her delay in seeking asylum and her two return visits to Pakistan

undercut her claim of a fear of future persecution. 

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the

IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the

evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. 

See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903-05 (5th Cir. 2002);

Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302-04 (5th Cir. 1997). Because

Ishrat did not make the required showing for asylum, she also was

not eligible for withholding of removal. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d

at 306 n.10. 

Accordingly, the petitions for review are DENIED.
#### § 20.6 Form, style, arrangement and apportionment of space.

The form, style, and arrangement of agency statements and other materials included in the Manual and the apportionment of space therein shall be determined by the Director of the Federal Register. The U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual is the applicable reference work in determining style.
Mr. Karl Brooks 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region VII 

11201 Renner Blvd. 

Lenexa, KS 66219 

Re: Negative Declaration for Existing Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI) in Nebraska 

Dear Mr. Brooks: 

Pursuant to §60.23 (b) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), I certify that, to the 

best of my knowledge, the State of Nebraska has no existing Sewage Sludge Incinerators (SSI) 

facilities within the state subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LLLLStandards of Performance for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. Therefore the state of 

Nebraska will not be adopting the regulations and implementation plan required by 40 CFR Part 

60.5005, Emission Guidelines for States with One or More SSI Units Constructed On or Before 

October 14, 2010. 

If you have any questions, please contact Brian Kozisek of my staff at (402) 471-6624. 

Air Quality Division 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

An Equal OpportunitvA/firmotiue Action Employer 

Pnnted woth sov ink on recvcled oaoer A
#### § 1200.11 What funds may be withdrawn?

A tribe may withdraw some or all funds that we hold in trust if we approve a plan that it submits under this part.
#### § 102.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|          |
|----------|
|          |
|     |
| FORM 8-K |
|     |

|                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |  |  |
|                                                   |   |   |
| PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY                      |
| (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) |
|                                                   |   |   |
|                                                   |   |   |
| Oregon                                                 | 001-5532-99 |      93-0256820           |
| (State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)          | (CommissionFile Number) |      (I.R.S. Employer               Identification No.)           |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|     |                                                                                       |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [ ] | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |

|     |                                                                                        |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [ ] | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |

|     |                                                                                                        |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [ ] | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |

|     |                                                                                                        |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [ ] | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

----

|           |                                    |
|-----------|------------------------------------|
| Item 9.01 | Financial Statements and Exhibits. |

|      |
|------|
|      |  |  |
| (d)  |   | Exhibits. |
| 99.1 |   | Press Release issued by Portland General Electric Company dated February 17, 2017. |
| 99.2 |   | Portland General Electric Company Fourth Quarter 2016 Slides dated February 17, 2017. |

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY |
|   |   |   |   | (Registrant) |
|   |   |   |   |   |
| Date:  | February 16, 2017 |   | By: | /s/ James F. Lobdell |
|   |   |   |   | James F. Lobdell |
|   |                                                                               |   |   | Senior Vice President of Finance,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1





        STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I, William McGlashan, Jr., the chief executive officer of Critical Path,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of
title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,

    (i)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2002 (the "Report") and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof,  fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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



                                /s/ William McGlashan
                                --------------------------

                                William McGlashan, Jr.
                                       Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
                                       the Board of Directors


                                August 14, 2002

<PAGE>






       STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      I, Laureen DeBuono, the chief financial officer of Critical Path, Inc.
(the "Company"), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of
title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,

     (i)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2002 (the "Report"), and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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



                                /s/ Laureen DeBuono
                                -----------------------

                                Laureen DeBuono
                                Executive Vice President and Chief
                                Financial Officer


                                August 14, 2002
EXHIBIT 32



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 INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA NETWORK, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Verdiramo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  August 12, 2004





By: /s/ Richard J. Verdiramo

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

Richard J. Verdiramo, President and CEO
§ 11.702 Proving and admitting will. ( a ) Upon initiating the probate of an estate, the will of the decedent shall be filed with the court. Such will may be proven and admitted to probate by filing an affidavit of an attesting witness which identifies such will as being the will which the decedent executed and declared to be his or her last will. If the evidence of none of the attesting witnesses is available, the court may allow proof of the will by testimony that the signature of the testator is genuine.
( b ) At any time within 90 days after a will has been admitted to probate, any person having an interest in the decedent's estate may contest the validity of such will. In the event of such contest, a hearing shall be held to determine the validity of such will.
( c ) Upon considering all relevant information concerning the will, the Court of Indian Offenses shall enter an order affirming the admission of such will to probate, or rejecting such will and ordering that the probate of the decedent's estate proceed as if the decedent had died intestate.
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 898

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 14, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

Designating certain land in the San Isabel National Forest

in the State of Colorado as the ‘‘Spanish Peaks Wilderness’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 898 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spanish Peaks Wilder3 ness Act of 1999’’.

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS.

5 (a) COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT.—Section 2(a) of

6 the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–

7 77; 107 Stat. 756; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note) is amended by

8 adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(20) SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS.—Certain

10 land in the San Isabel National Forest that—

11 ‘‘(A) comprises approximately 18,000

12 acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled

13 ‘Proposed Spanish Peaks Wilderness’, dated

14 February 10, 1999; and

15 ‘‘(B) shall be known as the ‘Spanish Peaks

16 Wilderness’.’’.

17 (b) MAP; BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION.—

18 (1) FILING.—As soon as practicable after the

19 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agri20 culture (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’),

21 shall file a map and boundary description of the

22 area designated under subsection (a) with—

23 (A) the Committee on Resources of the

24 House of Representatives; and

25 (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural

26 Resources of the Senate.
3

HR 898 RFS

1 (2) FORCE AND EFFECT.—The map and bound2 ary description under paragraph (1) shall have the

3 same force and effect as if included in the Colorado

4 Wilderness Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–77; 107

5 Stat. 756), except that the Secretary may correct

6 clerical and typographical errors in the map and

7 boundary description.

8 (3) AVAILABILITY.—The map and boundary de9 scription under paragraph (1) shall be on file and

10 available for public inspection in the Office of the

11 Chief of the Forest Service.

12 SEC. 3. ACCESS.

13 Within the Spanish Peaks Wilderness designated

14 under section 2—

15 (1) the Secretary shall allow the continuation of

16 historic uses of the Bulls Eye Mine Road established

17 prior to the date of enactment of this Act, subject

18 to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may

19 provide; and

20 (2) access to any privately owned land within

21 the wilderness areas designated under section 2 shall

22 be provided in accordance with section 5 of the Wil23 derness Act (16 U.S.C. 1134 et seq.).
4

HR 898 RFS

1 SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

2 Section 10 of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993

3 (Public Law 103–77; 107 Stat. 756; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note)

4 is repealed.

Passed the House of Representatives September 13,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
April.12,2013 

Docket Operations M-30 

West Building Ground Floor W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., .SE 

Washington, DC 20590;3 

14 .Af"ord./Vt.rtth,Jtrea 

g_ (J. {lJoa;d';:JTJ Y/-8 

.lfRfa.(J'& ~&801 

United States of America Department of Transportation 

Office of Secretary 

Washington, D.C. 

Re: Docket DOX-OST-1997-2605 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

flYwrt.e, (4o6) 2s2 -so74 

fTa£O (4o6) 284 -64-tJ 

enuzd.· harjxzdaw@FI'lOV.neb 

We the undersigned, long-time small business owners, tax payers and residents of Miles City, 

MT do strongly urge you to STOP the proposed termination of Essential Air Service to our 

community. · 

Miles City is an economic hub for eastern Montana. We are a frontier community, being more 

than 150 miles from our largest city in Montana, Billings, and more than 500 miles from any 

major city like Denver or Minneapolis. Public transportation is a necessity for our community to 

thrive. At present we only have once a day bus service and that has periodically been interrupted. 

Air service is a must for our medical community, for business travelers, and for all our citizens 

uot able to travel by bus or automobile. 

We have medical specialists that visit our community regularly. For example, last summer I 

(Deborah) had major back surgery and my neurosurgeon made monthly visits to Miles City. 

He could service many patients with office visits in one day, therefore, making it easier for 

the elderly and very ill to make appointments without having to drive 150 miles to Billings. 

When they changed scheduling for Miles City and the doctor and his staff could no longer fly, 

they have cut way back on their visits as it necessitates more time for travel and less for patients. 
.. 

Re: Docket DOX-OST-1997-2605, page 2 

We once again urge you to stop the proposed termination of Essential Air Service to Miles City 

and Lewistown. These communities are an jntegral part of the service to all of eastern Montana. 

With concerted effort from all parties, we are certain that the Department of Transportation could 

redesign the service to ensure that we have the public transportation we deserve and need.
#### Anthony Timony, Respondent, v. The Cord Meyer Company, Appellant.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event, on the ground that there is no proof that the defendant violated any duty to the plaintiff. Woodward, - Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hooker and Rich, JJ., dissented.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11

- 763 V

Filed: June 18, 2015

Not for P ublication

*************************************

GREGORY H. LADNER, *

*

Petitioner

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Jill M. Follows

, Washington, DC

, for petitioner.

Glenn A. MacLeod , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On June 18, 2015 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with General Order #9 , petitioner assert s that he did not incur any costs in

pursuit of his petition. On May 22, 2015, p etitioner filed his application for attorne ys’ fees and

costs

. During informal discussions, respondent ra ised objections t o certain aspects of petitioner’ s

application

. Based on these objections, petitioner amend s his appli cation for attor ne ys’ fees and

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special master s will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of priva cy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

costs to $19 ,00 0.00

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this

amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 19,000 .00 , representing reimbursement

for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a chec k payable jointly to

petitioner and Law Offices of J ill Follows for $ 19,000 .00

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### In the Matter of Abdullah Y. Salahuddin, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 485]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ferradino, J,), entered July 12, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the second degree and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 25 years to life and 71/2 to 15 years, respectively. In July 2005, he made his third appearance before respondent Board of Parole for parole release. His request was denied and he was ordered held for an additional 24 months. After the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. The record discloses that, in denying parole to *1083petitioner, the Board considered the relevant factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i including not only the serious nature of the crimes, but also petitioner’s criminal background, prison disciplinary history, program accomplishments and postrelease plans *(see Matter of Thompson v New York State Div. of Parole,*30 AD3d 746 [2006]; *Matter of Rivera v Dennison, 25*AD3d 856, 857 [2006]). Petitioner’s contention that the Board based its decision solely upon the violent nature of the crimes is without support in the record. In any event, the Board was free to place particular emphasis on this factor and was not required to give all of the statutory factors equal weight *(see Matter of Rivera v Dennison, supra*at 857; *Matter of Wood v Dennison,*25 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2006]). Furthermore, there is no merit to petitioner’s claim that the Board’s decision is the product of an informal executive policy of denying parole to violent felons *(see Matter of Scott v New York State Div. of Parole,*23 AD3d 950, 951 [2005]). His remaining claims are unavailing. Inasmuch as the Board’s decision does not exhibit “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we decline to disturb it.

Cardona, P.J., Petérs, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
OFFICER CERTIFICATE





UBS-Citibank Commercial Mortgage
Trust
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2011-C1





March 1, 2013



Pursuant to the requirements
of that certain Subservicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), it is hereby certified that on behalf of PNC Bank, National
Association d/b/a Midland Loan Services as successor by merger to Midland Loan Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"),



(i) a review of the Servicer's activities
during the calendar year 2012 (the "Reporting Period") and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under
the undersigned officer's supervision;

(ii) to the best of the undersigned
officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
each such failure known to the undersigned officer and the nature and status thereof are set forth below; and





Nature and Status of Failures: None.











PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCATION

d/ba MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES



/s/ Steven W. Smith

Steven W. Smith

Executive Vice President









Member of The PNC Financial
Services Group

10851 Mastin Boulevard Overland
Park, Kansas 66210

800-327-8083

www.pnc.com/midland