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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1820

BAZOMBIE PROSPER BAZIE,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the

United States,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A97-187-336)

Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Assistant Director, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Bazie does not challenge the Board’s finding that he was

statutorily barred from asylum. He has therefore waived appellate

review of his asylum claim. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178

F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bazombie Prosper Bazie, a native and citizen of Burkina

Faso, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his

requests for asylum,* withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Bazie contends that the Board

and immigration judge erred in denying his request for withholding

of removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner

must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because

of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,

324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430

(1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that Bazie

failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.

We therefore uphold the denial of his request for withholding of

removal.

Bazie also challenges the denial of his claim for

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because he failed

to raise this claim before the Board, we find that we have no

jurisdiction to consider this claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
- 3 -

(2000) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . .

the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to

the alien as of right.”); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3

(4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005) (holding that

we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not raised

before the Board).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### In the Matter of George Stoehrer, Appellant, v. Temporary State Housing Rent Commission, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for reargument *950or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and for other relief, denied. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHERINE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER, 

POSTMASTER GENERAL,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-00026 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR REVIEW OF DISMISSAL

This pro se employment action was settled at a settlement conference held before

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James in January 2009. Plaintiff subsequently filed three

requests for relief from her decision to settle. All were denied because plaintiff had entered a

valid, binding settlement. Plaintiff now moves yet again for relief from the settlement, this time

on the grounds that defendant did not comply with the terms of settlement. Specifically,

plaintiff argues that pursuant to the settlement, defendant was to deliver a settlement check to

plaintiff by noon on April 2, 2009. Although defendant attempted to comply by delivering the

check to her door on March 31, 2009, plaintiff refused to accept delivery. Plaintiff admits that

defendant thereafter timely left the check in her mailbox on April 1, 2009, but she argues that

this delivery was “null and void” because the check was not mailed through the postal service. 

Plaintiff’s argument is nonsensical. She has not stated a valid ground for relief from the

settlement into which she voluntarily entered. Nor has she brought her motion for relief within 

Case 3:08-cv-00026-WHA Document 83 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

a reasonable time. The case has been closed for more than a year. Her motion is therefore

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00026-WHA Document 83 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2
TRANSPORTATION

HYDROLOGY

Future demands for 

COOP data will

increase with more 

energy needed

Heating/Cooling 

Degree Days derived 

from COOP data 

determine your monthly power bill

Billions of dollars in planning for forecast 

energy consumption and necessary 

resources to provide power to an area

Snow removal 

preparation

Route planning for 

commercial goods to 

avoid weather delays

Planning for barge 

traffic across nation’s waterways

Planning highways to handle heavy 

precipitation events

COOP data is used 

by Water Resource 

Management

Flood maps and 

forecast models use 

rainfall data

Planning for development, growth and 

flood control

CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN

New air freezing index 

estimated to save $300 

million/year by home 

builders association

Planning for roof 

loading of snow/heavy 

rainfall

Max

& Min Temperature • Precipitation

•

Snowfall •

COOPERATIVE OBSERVER

PROGRAM

Federal Disaster 

Declaration funding in 

billions of dollars are 

determined with COOP 

data

History of weather 

extremes used in 

planning to save millions of dollars

Insurance industry payouts in billions 

of dollars are determined with COOP 

information

COOP data is used to 

develop growing season 

zones

Plant research and 

adaptability

Frost/freeze climatology

COOP data is used to study effects of climate 

on crop yields

AGRICULTURE/AGRIBUSINESS

COOP data is used 

in NWS forecast and 

warning process

Health/Disease 

Mitigation

Recreation/Tourism

COOP data is used to help solve legal disputes

OTHER USES OF COOP DATA

• Soil Temperature • River Stages • Evaporation

WEATHER & CLIMATE DATA

FOR

DECISION SUPPORT

ENERGY

DISASTER MITIGATION

(COOP)

DROUGHT

National Integrated 

Drought Information 

System uses COOP 

data through Western 

Governor’s Association

Drought losses average

$6-8 billion/year. COOP 

data is used for National and North American 

Drought monitoring/mitigation

Approximately $4 trillion of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is reliant on accurate weather data!
National Weather Service

www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop

www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/recent-obs.htm

History

The program can be tracked back to 1797 

when Thomas Jefferson envisioned a 

network of weather observers across the 

nation.

Program Management

The National Weather Service manages 

all aspects of program operations, 

training, data acquisition, and station 

maintenance.

COOPERATIVE OBSERVER PROGRAM

Vision Statement

Provide official unbiased, high quality 

weather and climate observations and 

data stewardship for all data users. 

Collect and provide daily observations for 

input into decision support at all levels of 

government and private citizens.

The Mission

Monitor and maintain the nation’s local 

climate and weather data record to 

support weather and climate forecasts, 

watches, warnings, and the continuity 

and preservation of the climate record 

and signal.

Cooperative

Observer

Program

Resources

The COOP Program par tners 

across numerous Federal, State 

and Local agencies.

“Quality

Observations

Lighting the Way 

for Decision

Makers of

Tomorrow”
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Pacific Biomarkers, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Ronald
R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer, and John P. Jensen, Vice President and
Controller, of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:
February 11, 2011


/s/ Ronald R. HelmRonald
      R. Helm,Chief
      Executive Officer/s/ John P. JensenJohn
      P. JensenVice
      President and Controller
#### § 270.30b1-7 Monthly report for money market funds.

Every registered open-end management investment company, or series thereof, that is regulated as a money market fund under § 270.2a-7 must file with the Commission a monthly report of portfolio holdings on Form N-MFP (§ 274.201 of this chapter), current as of the last business day or any subsequent calendar day of the preceding month, no later than the fifth business day of each month.

[79 FR 47967, Aug. 14, 2014]
Order entered May 31 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00677
- CV
IN RE RONALD A. LOGS DON, Relator On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 50294
- 2012 

### O RDE R Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

HOWREY LLP REGARDING BRIEFING ON INTERVNEOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE JOHN FAGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

TOM VILSACK, et al.,, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST 

FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING 

BRIEFING ON INTERVENOR 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE 

JOHN FAGAN 

(Honorable Jeffrey S. White) 

Case3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document511-1 Filed06/18/10 Page1 of 2

AS MODIFIED

Case 3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document 522 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 -1- 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

REGARDING BRIEFING ON INTERVNEOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE JOHN FAGAN HOWREY LLP 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Briefing On Intervenors’ Motion to 

Exclude the Declaration of John Fagan (the “Stipulation”). Upon consideration of the Stipulation, the 

Court hereby GRANTS the requested modification of time for briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction sought in the Stipulation, as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Intervenors’ Motion to Exclude the Declaration of John Fagan 

shall be submitted on or before June 28, 2010. 

2. Intervenors’ Reply in support of their Motion to Exclude the Declaration of John Fagan 

shall be submitted on or before July 2, 2010. 

4. Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be set for July 9, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________________ ________________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE 

Case3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document511-1 Filed06/18/10 Page2 of 2

June 24 June 29 June 21, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document 522 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 1508.855 Who has the burden of proof in a debarment action? ( a ) We have the burden to prove that a cause for debarment exists.
( b ) Once a cause for debarment is established, you as a respondent have the burden of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the debarring official that you are presently responsible and that debarment is not necessary.
of

if

:
SSWEETWAY
CARBON

Classification A - Open to Leasing with Standard Stipulations

Classification B - Open to Leasing with Minor Constraints
(8 Classification C - Open to Leasing with Major Constraints

HE Classification D - Closed to Leasing

(See Table 2-1 for additional information)

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

fenne

68 67 66, 65 64 63 62 R6IW 6

1°) 10 20 40 60 80 100
Kilometers
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
aaa
Miles
Map 2-38

Oil and Gas Classifications
Alternative 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. CV-08-0986-SI - 1 - [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AMD’S 

MTN. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, 

INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. CV-08-0986-SI 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AMD’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY 

TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT OF NO INFRINGEMENT OF 

U.S. PATENT NO. 5,559,990

Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC (collectively 

“AMD”) have moved the Court for leave to file a sur-reply to Samsung’s Reply in Support of 

Motion of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990 (Dkt. ##559, 587). Having considered 

AMD’s motion and its supporting papers, the Court grants AMD leave to file said sur-reply. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that AMD’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply to 

Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990 is 

GRANTED, and AMD’s Sur-reply to Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No 

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990 shall be entered into the record accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:_______________ ______________________ 

 Honorable Susan Illston 

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 597 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. CV-08-0986-SI - 1 - 

AMD’S MOTION TO STRIKE SAMSUNG’S 

SECOND MSJ OF INVALIDITY OF 

U.S. PATENT NO. 5,545,592

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 597 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Morris, 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)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August 14, 2010


/s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Fred J. Steurer, appellant, v. Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 7,071.

Action for personal injuries and for damage to plaintiff’s automobile in a collision with one of defendant’s electric cars. Judgment for defendant. Por former opinion, see 220 111. App. 546, Appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone county; the Hon. Edward D. Shurtleff, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April-term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 25, 1922.

W. C. DeWolf, for appellant. James M. Huff, for appellee; John Faissler, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 437.7 Record retention. To prevent the unfair and deceptive acts or practices specified in this Rule, business opportunity sellers and their principals must prepare, retain, and make available for inspection by Commission officials copies of the following documents for a period of three years: ( a ) Each materially different version of all documents required by this Rule;
( b ) Each purchaser's disclosure receipt;
( c ) Each executed written contract with a purchaser; and
( d ) All substantiation upon which the seller relies for each earnings claim from the time each such claim is made.
EXHIBIT 31.1








RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) CERTIFICATION (SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)











I, Andrew J. McMonigle, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2019-4 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.








Date: May 27, 2022








/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Name: Andrew J. McMonigle


Title: Vice President and Treasurer


(Senior officer in charge of securitization)


Company: CarMax Auto Funding LLC


as Depositor on behalf of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2019-4
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00590-CR

Michael ORLOWSKI,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-1394-CR

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 11, 2013

DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal; the motion is signed by Appellant and his 

counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Appellant’s motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed. 

See id.; Conners v. State, 966 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
### §238g. Wearing of uniforms

Except as may be authorized by regulations of the President, the insignia and uniform of commissioned officers of the Service, or any distinctive part of such insignia or uniform, or any insignia or uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part thereof, shall not be worn, after the promulgation of such regulations, by any person other than a commissioned officer of the Service.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title II, §238, formerly title V, §510, 58 Stat. 711; June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §5, 62 Stat. 859; renumbered title XXI, §2110, Pub. L. 98–24, §2(a)(1), Apr. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 176; renumbered title XXIII, §2310, Pub. L. 99–660, title III, §311(a), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3755; renumbered title XXV, §2508, Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §201(1), (3), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3062, 3063; renumbered title XXVI, §2608, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2620(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4244; renumbered title XXVII, §2708, Pub. L. 101–381, title I, §101(1), (2), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 576; renumbered title II, §238, Pub. L. 103–43, title XX, §2010(a)(1)–(3), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 213.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 300aaa–7 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 103–43, to section 300cc–9 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 100–607, to section 300aa–9 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 99–660, and to section 228 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 98–24.

#### Amendments

1948—Act June 25, 1948, struck out penal provisions. See section 702 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### Effective Date of 1948 Amendment

Amendment effective Sept. 1, 1948, see section 20 of act June 25, 1948.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Public Health Service, Surgeon General of Public Health Service, and all other officers and employees of Public Health Service, and functions of all agencies of or in Public Health Service transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1966, eff. June 25, 1966, 31 F.R. 8855, 80 Stat. 1610, set out as a note under section 202 of this title.

#### Delegation of Functions

Functions of President delegated to Secretary of Health and Human Services, see Ex. Ord. No. 11140, Jan. 30, 1964, 29 F.R. 1637, as amended, set out as a note under section 202 of this title.