alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2565.6 Rights-of-way. ( a ) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, the trustee is authorized to grant rights-of-way for public purposes across any unentered lands within the townsite. This authority is expressly limited to grants of rights-of-way to cities, towns, villages, and municipalities, and to school, utility, and other types of improvement districts, and to persons, associations, companies, and corporations engaged in furnishing utility services to the general public, and to the United States, any Federal or State agency or instrumentality for use for public purposes.
( b ) The trustee may in his discretion fix a reasonable charge for any grant under this authority to private persons, associations, companies and corporations, and to Federal and State agencies and instrumentalities, which charge shall be a lump sum. All grants shall be subject to such conditions, limitations, or stipulations as the trustee shall determine are necessary or appropriate in the circumstances. No grants of rights-of-way under this authority shall be made across or upon lands on which prior rights of occupancy or entry have vested under the law.
( c ) Grants of rights-of-way under this section to Federal and State agencies and instrumentalities to private persons, associations, companies, or corporations affecting lands within any incorporated city, town, village, or municipality, may be made only after the proposed grant has received the approval of the city, town, or village council, or, where applicable, the municipal board or commission having authority under state law to approve rights-of-way for local public utility purposes. Grants of such rights-of-way to Federal and State agencies and instrumentalities and to private persons, associations, companies, or corporations within unincorporated cities, towns, villages, or municipalities may be made only after notice of the proposed grant, together with the opportunity to be heard, has been given by the proposed grantee to the residents or occupants thereof in accordance with the requirements for such notice in the case of the public sale of unclaimed lots in a trustee townsite. Any decision by the trustee which is adverse to a protest will be subject to the right of appeal under part 1840 of this chapter. Upon the filing of an appeal, action by the trustee on the application for right-of-way will be suspended pending final decision on the appeal.
#### § 3474.5 Default.

When the surety makes payment to the Government of any indebtedness due under a lease, the face amount of the surety bond and the surety's liability thereunder shall be reduced by the amount of such payment.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

September 30, 2019

d0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2019

157154

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157154

COA: 339219

Oakland CC: 2015

- 256225

- FH

RASHED ABDULAH UNDERWOOD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of July 3, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the December 13,

2017 order of the Court of Ap peals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People

v Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied

in Ames on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the application is again considered, and

it is DENIED, because w e are not persuaded that the questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court.
#### Rose McCarthy et al., as Administratrices of the Estate of John McCarthy, Deceased, v. City of New York et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peek, P. J., Grlennon, Dore, Cohn and Yan Yoorhis, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 945.]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7434

HERBERT L. BELL, a/k/a Herbert Lee Bell,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden of Lee Correctional Inst,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:12-cv-02555-RBH)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert L. Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Herbert L. Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Bell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### § 668.640 What grievance systems must a section 166 program provide?

INA grantees must establish grievance procedures consistent with the requirements of WIA section 181(c) and 20 CFR 667.600.
### **Subchapter E—Special Provisions Applicable to Services and Facilities Taxes**

Sec.
4291.
Cases where persons receiving payment must collect tax.
[4292.
Repealed.]
4293.
Exemption for United States and possessions.
[4294, 4295. Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1904(b)(4), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1815, struck out items 4292, 4294, and 4295 relating to State and local governmental exemption, exemption for nonprofit educational organizations, and cross reference to general administrative provisions, respectively.

**1958**—Pub. L. 85–859, title I, §135(b), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1292, added item 4294 and redesignated former item 4294 as 4295.
§ 3214.21 What must I do if I want to use a certificate of deposit to back my bond? Your certificate of deposit must: ( a ) Be issued by a Federally-insured financial institution authorized to do business in the United States;
( b ) Include on its face the statement, “This certificate cannot be redeemed by any party without approval by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary's delegate;” and
( c ) Be payable to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6068

SAMUEL LEWIS BAKER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:04-cr-30073-SGW; 7:06-cv-00129-SGW) Submitted: June 11, 2007 Decided: April 28, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Lewis Baker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Samuel Lewis Baker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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
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 Justice

                    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in                     *United States*                     v.                     *Oakwood Homes LLC and Niebur Golf, Inc.*, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on September 17, 2004.                

This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Oakwood Homes LLC and Niebur Golf, Inc., pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 1319(b) and (d), and 33 U.S.C. 1344(s)(3), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to restore the impacted areas, to perform mitigation, and to pay a civil penalty.

                    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Stephen D. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, 1225 17th Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202 and refer to                     *United States*                     v.                     *Oakwood Homes, et al.*, Civil Action No. 04-D-1918 (MJW).                

                    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Alfred A. Arrraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Room A 105, Denver, Colorado 80294. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be viewed at                     *http://www.usdoj.gov/​enrd/​open.html*.                

John W. Suthers,

*United States Attorney.*

Stephen D. Taylor,

Assistant U.S. Attorney.

[FR Doc. 04-21871  Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
### §652. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act May 18, 1928, ch. 624, §2, 45 Stat. 602; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §150, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 46; Pub. L. 100–352, §6(b), June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 663; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516, which related to claims against the United States for appropriated lands, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YURIDIA GARCIA LORENZO,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting

Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71491

Agency No. A087

- 747

- 441

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Immigration Judge

Submitted January 20, 2021 * *

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Yuridia Garcia Lorenzo , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review

of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that

s he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus is

not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jur isdiction

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JAN 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71491

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination

for substantial evidence. Andrade

- Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir.

2016) . W e deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s deter mination that Garcia Lorenzo

failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a

protected ground. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circu mstantial”) ;

Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”) ; Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012,

1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding future fear not objectively reasonable under

circumstances of the case).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Garcia

Lorenzo failed to demonstrate a reas onable possibility of torture by or wi th the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See Andrade

Garcia , 828 F.3d at 836

- 37 ( no government acquiescence demonstrated )

.

As stated in the court’s August 6, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 36.4 Filing of application. ( a ) A SF 299, which may be obtained from an appropriate Federal agency, shall be completed by the applicant according to the instructions on the form. The form shall be filed on the same day (except in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section) with each appropriate Federal agency from which an authorization, such as a permit, license, lease or certificate is required for the TUS. Filing with any appropriate Interior agency in Alaska shall be considered to be a filing with all of its agencies. Any filing fee required by the appropriate Federal agency pursuant to applicable law must be paid at the time of filing.
( b ) Prior to filing the SF 299, the applicant shall determine whether additional information to that requested on the form is required by the appropriate Federal agencies. If so, the applicant shall file the additional information as an attachment to the SF 299.
( c ) When, because of separate filing points, an applicant is not able to file with each appropriate Federal agency on the same day, the applicant shall file all applications as soon as possible. All applications must be filed within a 15 calendar day period. For purposes of the time requirements provided for in this part, the application shall not be considered to have been filed until the last appropriate Federal agency receives the application. The lead agency, determined pursuant to § 36.5(a), shall determine the date of filing or that the application was not filed within the 15 day period and inform all appropriate Federal agencies.
( d ) The information collection requirements contained in these regulations have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and assigned clearance numbers 1024-0026 and 1004-0060. The information collected by the appropriate Federal agency will be used to determine whether or not to issue a permit to obtain a benefit. A response is required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Index of Non‐CBI Pre‐Rule Communication with Companies 

1.) Nov. 5, 2010 – Email from Staci Gatica, EPA, to Bob Kamins, Altair Partners, LP, 

about timing of 2011 letter to allowance holders indicating company‐specific 

calendar‐year allowances 

2.) Nov. 9, 2010 – Email from Andy Stolarz, Honeywell, to Staci Gatica, EPA, about 

timing of 2011 letter to allowance holders indicating company‐specific 

calendar‐year allowances 

3.) Nov. 29, 2010 – Email from Roger Patrick, Mayer Brown LLP, to Diane McConkey, 

EPA, about timing of 2011 letter to allowance holders indicating 

company‐specific calendar‐year allowances 

4.) Dec. 29, 2010 – Email from Staci Gatica, EPA, to Jose Armas, Refricenter 

International, about timing of 2011 letter to allowance holders indicating 

company‐specific calendar‐year allowances 

5.) Jan. 10, 2011 – Internal EPA email from Luke Hall‐Jordan in preparation for Jan. 

11, 2011 Alliance Meeting Q&A Session with Drusilla Hufford, EPA 

6.) Jan. 27, 2011 – Correspondence from James Tieken, ICOR International Inc., to 

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA 

dated January 27, 2011 

7.) Feb. 4, 2011 – Correspondence from William J. Hamel, Arkema Inc., to Drusilla 

Hufford, EPA, via electronic and overnight mail 

8.) March 7, 2011 – Email from Don Magid, Solvay Fluorides, LLC, to Drusilla 

Hufford, EPA 

9.) June 2, 2011 – Correspondence from David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, to Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, EPA, and Administrator Cass R. 

Sunstein, OIRA, OMB 

10.) List of entities meeting with EPA to discuss the HCFC Phaseout between January 

21, 2011 (the date EPA’s petition for rehearing was denied) and June 6, 2011
§ 2.23 When will the bureau deny a request or procedural benefits? ( a ) A bureau denies a request when it makes a decision that: ( 1 ) A requested record is exempt, in full or in part;
( 2 ) The request does not reasonably describe the records sought;
( 3 ) A requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or is not in the bureau's possession and/or control; or
( 4 ) A requested record is not readily reproducible in the form or format you seek.
( b ) A bureau denies a procedural benefit only, and not access to the underlying records, when it makes a decision that: ( 1 ) A fee waiver, or another fee-related issue, will not be granted; or
( 2 ) Expedited processing will not be provided.
( c ) The bureau must consult with the Office of the Solicitor before it denies a fee waiver request or withholds all or part of a requested record (unless the Office of the Solicitor has expressly preapproved such a withholding).
[77 FR 76902, Dec. 31, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 11129, Mar. 3, 2016; 84 FR 61828, Nov. 14, 2019]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0635 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SAUL JAMES DOOLING,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 18 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 11 2023

09/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0635
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARTIN BROWN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Nos. 12 and 13 EM 2021

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2021, the “Application for Permission to File a 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc” is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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

I, Sean Y.  Fulda,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Financial  Officer  of
UniverCell Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that:

-     the  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended  March  31,  2003,  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934;
and

-     the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in  all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company  for  the  periods  presented  therein.

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.

/S/  SEAN  Y.  FULDA
--------------------
Sean  Y.  Fulda
Chief  Executive  Officer  and
Chief  Financial  Officer
Date:  May 17,  2004
### PART V—REGULATIONS

Sec.
1397F.
Regulations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1997**—Pub. L. 105–34, title II, §226(a), (b)(2), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 820, 824, redesignated part IV of this subchapter as this part and item 1397D as 1397F.