alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . 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.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1983

___________________________

Alonzo Dwayne Coleman,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Michael C. Hakala, Physician, Corizon, SECC; Elizabeth Conley, Regional

Medical Director, Missouri Department of Corrections; Phyllis Stanley; Corizon

Medical Services,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees,

Ruth Taylor, Director of Nursing; Stephanie Novak, Health Services

Administrator, Corizon, SECC; John Doe; Jane Doe,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________

 Submitted: June 20, 2018

Filed: June 26, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Alonzo DwayneColeman appeals the district court’s adverse

1

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On de novo review, we

view the record in a light most favorable to Coleman, and draw all reasonable

inferences in his favor. Under that standard, we agree with the district court that

Coleman did not create a jury issue on whether the medical care Dr. Michael Hakala

provided for his kidney and liver diseases and their related symptoms rose to the level

of deliberate indifference, which requires a mental state akin to criminal

recklessness. See Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1065-66 (8th Cir. 2014). 

The summary judgment record showed that Coleman’s chronic and incurable

diseases were monitored through lab tests, an ultrasound, CT scans, and evaluations

by specialists, and that he admitted the medication he received for his pain was

effective. While, asthe district court noted, the treatment provided was not a “model

of medical care,” Coleman offered no verifying medical evidence that a delay in his

receiving certain diagnostic tests, or in seeing a specialist, had a detrimental effect. 

See Laughlin v. Schriro, 430 F.3d 927, 929 (8th Cir. 2005). We also agree with the

district court that because the record did not demonstrate a constitutional violation,

there was no basis for § 1983 corporate liability against Corizon Medical Services,

see Smith v. Insley’s, Inc., 499 F.3d 875, 880 (8th Cir. 2007), or for supervisory

liability against Dr. Elizabeth Conley or Phyllis Stanley, see Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302

F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002). We deny appellees’ motion to strike, and affirm the

judgment. 

______________________________

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States DistrictJudge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 493 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 493

      Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a 
commemorative postage stamp should be issued honoring the Fisk Jubilee 
    Singers, and that the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should 
    recommend to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2000

 Mr. Hastings of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a 
commemorative postage stamp should be issued honoring the Fisk Jubilee 
    Singers, and that the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should 
    recommend to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.

Whereas, 6 months after the end of the Civil War, the Fisk School was 
        established in Nashville, Tennessee;
Whereas the Fisk School was designed by its founders to be an educational 
        institution open to all, regardless of race or age;
Whereas the Fisk School was incorporated as Fisk University in 1867;
Whereas funding for the opening of the school was secured through the sale of 
        slave paraphernalia;
Whereas, in 1871, a group of students at Fisk University formed a choral group 
        with the goal of raising money to finance the institution;
Whereas, in that same year, that choral group, the Fisk Jubilee Singers, took 
        the entire contents of the University treasury with them for travel 
        expenses and set off on a tour of the United States and Europe;
Whereas, during their first tour, the Jubilee Singers raised enough money to 
        preserve their university and pay for the construction of Jubilee Hall, 
        the South's first permanent structure built for the education of black 
        students;
Whereas the Jubilee Singers introduced the world to the spiritual as a musical 
        genre; and
Whereas the Fisk Jubilee Singers continue to tour and perform to this day, and 
        have received countless awards and honors along the way: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be issued by the 
        United States Postal Service honoring the Fisk Jubilee Singers; 
        and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend 
        to the Postmaster General that such a postage stamp be issued.
                                 <all>
```
§ 247.14 Can I hook up a campsite to on-site or off-site utilities? ( a ) You must share access to all on-site facilities.
( b ) Because there are a limited number of faucets available, only short-term hose use is allowed to ensure that others have access to water.
( c ) You may not tap into electrical lines or outlets, or have electrical power brought in from an outside source for campsite use.
# C_2006281EN.01000302.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 September 2006 — JCB Service v Commission of the European Communities,

(Case C-167/04 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Cartels - Article 81 EC - Distribution agreements - Concerted practices - Notification - Form A/B - Application for exemption - Rejection - Duration of the assessment of the notification procedure - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Complaint - Infringement - General prohibition on passive sales - Limitation of the sources of supply - New pleas in law - Fines - Guidelines - Gravity of the infringement - Duration - Attenuating circumstances - Cross-appeal - Aggravating circumstances)

(2006/C 281/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: JCB Service, (represented by: E.Morgan de Rivery and E. Friedel, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: A. Whelan, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 January 2004 in Case T-67/01 JCB Service v Commission partially annulling the Commission Decision of 21 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP.F.1/35.918 — JCB

JCB Service

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Allows the cross-appeal of the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Allows the cross-appeal of the Commission of the European Communities.

| 3. | Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 January 2004 in Case T-67/01 JCB Service v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 January 2004 in Case T-67/01 JCB Service v Commission.

JCB Service

Commission

| 4. | Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on JCB Service under Article 4 of Commission Decision 2002/190/EC of 21 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP.F.1/35.918 –JCB) at EUR 30 864 000. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on JCB Service under Article 4 of Commission Decision 2002/190/EC of 21 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP.F.1/35.918 –JCB) at EUR 30 864 000.

| 5. | Orders JCB Service to bear all the costs of these appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders JCB Service to bear all the costs of these appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 12.06.2004.

1

---
#### Hollowell *v.*Wark, Administratrix.

[No. 12,234.

Filed April 2, 1925.]

*Appeal.—Cause assigned as ground for new trial must be clear and specific, so an appellate tribunal will not have to search-the*record.—A cause for a new trial must be clear and specific, so that the court will not need to search the record to find the alleged error, and assigning as a cause for a new trial “errors in admitting evidence to which defendant then and there excepted” presents no question for review on appeal.

From Franklin Circuit Court; *Cecil C. Tague,*Judge.

*619Action between Clem Hollowell and Leota Wark, Administratrix of the estate of Rillia J. Hollowell. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*John H. Thorndike*and *M. P. Hubbard,*for appellant.

*I. N. McCarty*and *O. S. Boling,*for appellee.

Nichols, J.

The only point which appellant undertakes to present is error of the court in admitting’ certain evidence. The only cause for a new-trial by which he undertakes to present this point is “for errors in admitting’ evidence to which defendant then and there excepted.”

Such an assignment presents no question. Causes for a new trial must be clear and specific so that the court will not need to search the record to find the alleged errors. *Bayless*v. *Glenn*(1880), 72 Ind. 5, 11; *Staser*v. *Hogan*(1889), 120 Ind. 207, 21 N. E. 911, 22 N. E. 990; *Rees*v. *Blackwell*(1893), 6 Ind. App. 506, 33 N. E. 938.

Affirmed.
# C_2006224EN.01003301.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Bergamo — Italy) — D.I.A. Srl, in liquidation v Cartiere Paolo Pigna SpA

(Case C-309/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 224/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
with Respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2003

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of UCBH Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | 1. |  | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.                                                                                      

| |  |                          |  |                             
| |  | ------------------------ |  | ----------------------------
| |  | Dated: November 14, 2003 |  | /s/  Thomas S. Wu           
| |  |                          |  | Thomas S. Wu,               
| |  |                          |  | Chairman, President and     
| |  |                          |  | Chief Executive Officer     
| |  |                          |  |                             
| |  | Dated:
November 14, 2003 |  | /s/  Jonathan H. Downing    
| |  |                          |  | Jonathan H. Downing,        
| |  |                          |  | Executive Vice President and
| |  |                          |  | Chief Financial Officer     

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document of the
Company or the certifying officers.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 545 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 253
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 545

                          [Report No. 106-726]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for 
    reconciliation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of the concurrent 
             resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2000

Ms. Pryce of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for 
    reconciliation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of the concurrent 
             resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
section 103(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2001. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any 
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the 
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution, if offered by Representative Rangel or his designee, 
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; 
and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
                                                 House Calendar No. 253

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 545

                          [Report No. 106-726]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for 
    reconciliation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of the concurrent 
             resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 11, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council, September 19, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to September 19, 2011, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Conference Rooms E1/E2, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 7, 2011, 76 FR 6627.                

The afternoon meeting of the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Subcommittee will be open to the public from 1 p.m. to adjournment. It was erroneously published as a closed meeting.

Dated: February 17, 2011.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-4173 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
July 6, 2015

Mr. Frank A. Dees

Founder and CEO

AeroVue Imagery

6707 Fall River Road

Idaho Springs, CO 80452

Dear Mr. Dees:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 9, 2015 exemption request on behalf of AeroVue Imagery, LLC into 

the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0961), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
7/2/2015 Regulations.gov ­ Other Document

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA­2015­0961­0001 1/2

AeroVue Imagery, LLC - Exemption/Rulemaking

This Other document was issued by the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA)

For related information, Open Docket Folder

Content

Frank A Dees

6707 Fall River Rd

Idaho Springs, CO 80452

andydees@aerovueimagery.com

Petition for Exemption/Rulemaking

Attachments (1)

Comment Now!

ID: FAA­2015­0961­0001

Document Information

Date Posted:

Apr 9, 2015

Show More Details

Submitter Information

Organization Name:

AeroVue Imagery, LLC

Comments

0

Docket Information

This document is contained in

FAA­2015­0961

Related Dockets:

None

Related RINs:

None

Related Documents:

None

This count refers to the total

comment/submissions received on

this document, as of 11:59 PM

yesterday. Note: Agencies review

all submissions, however some

agencies may choose to redact, or

withhold, certain submissions (or

View Attachment:

AeroVue Imagery, LLC -

Exemption/Rulemaking

Comments Received*

*