alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR HUGO MARTINEZJARAMILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-70751

Agency No. A030-700-636

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Victor Hugo Martinez-Jaramillo, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is

FILED

DEC 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-70751

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review. 

In his opening brief, Martinez-Jaramillo fails to address, and therefore has

waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he is statutorily ineligible

for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6), and for adjustment of

status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(3). See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,

1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a

party’s opening brief are waived).

We need not consider Martinez-Jaramillo’s claim that his convictions for

burglary and petty theft are not crimes involving moral turpitude because he failed

to raise this issue before this court in his prior petition for review. See Christian

Legal Soc. Chapter of University of California v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 488 (9th Cir.

2010) (petitioner who fails to raise an issue in previous petition for review is not

entitled to “a second bite at the appellate apple”). 

Martinez-Jamarillo’s contention that the agency violated due process by

failing to consider his proof of rehabilitation is rejected. 
3 11-70751

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that MartinezJamarillo did not merit voluntary departure as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229c(f) (“No court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a

request for an order of voluntary departure”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------

                           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 NeoMedia  Technologies,  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"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operation of the Company.

Date: August 2, 2004                       By: /s/ David A. Dodge
      --------------                           ---------------------------------
                                           Name: David A. Dodge
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to NeoMedia  Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by NeoMedia  Technologies,  Inc. and  furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 581.27 Annual rental. ( a ) The annual lease rental shall be due and payable in accordance with the provisions of this section. No rental shall be due or payable under a lease commencing with the first lease anniversary date following the commencement of royalty payments on leasehold production computed on the basis of the royalty rate specified in the lease except that annual rental shall be due for any year in which production from the leasehold is not subject to royalty pursuant to § 581.28.
( b ) Unless otherwise specified in the leasing notice and subsequently issued lease, no annual rental payment shall be due during the first 5 years in the life of a lease.
( c ) The leasee shall pay an annual rental in the amount specified in the leasing notice and subsequently issued lease not later than the last day prior to the commencement of the rental year.
( d ) A rental adjustment schedule and amount may be specified in a leasing notice and subsequently issued lease when a variance is warranted by geologic, geographic, technical, or economic conditions.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**STATEMENTPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS REQUIRED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of John Deere Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertify that to the best of our 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 results of operations of the Company. |

 
| August 28, 2009 | * * | */s/ S.  R. Allen* |   | Chairman and Principal  Executive Officer              |
|----------------------|----------|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |     | S. R. Allen        |   |                                                   |
|                 |     |               |   |                                                   |
| August 28, 2009 | * * | */s/ J.  M. Field* |   | Senior Vice President  and Principal Financial Officer |
|                 |     | J. M. Field        |   |                                                   |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to John Deere CapitalCorporation and will be retained by John Deere Capital Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

30

 

----
#### In the Matter of Walter Griffin, Appellant, v Edward R. Hammock, as Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Board of Parole which set a minimum sentence of three years, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 17, 1977, which denied his application. Appeal dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner seeks to annul the determination of the Board of Parole which fixed his minimum sentence at three years (see Correction Law, former §212 [repealed by L 1977, ch 904, §2]). However, petitioner has since been released on parole and therefore any decision by this court would necessarily be academic (see Matter of La Croix v Olgiati, 60 AD2d 652). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph De Roy, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered September 8, 1977, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The circumstances of this case, insofar as they relate to the issue of a speedy trial, fall far short of those interdicted in *People v Staley*(41 NY2d 789). The comparatively short period between the Grand Jury’s voting of no true bill in October, 1976 (as a result of which court authorization was needed for resubmission to the same or another Grand Jury [CPL 190.75, subd 3]; such authorization was obtained in November, 1976) and the resubmission to the Grand Jury in December, 1976, which thereupon indicted; the fact that the case was not "apparently forgotten” (cf. *People v Staley, supra,*p 791) and that there was no "[sjheer neglect or trifling” *(People v Staley, supra,*p 792); the lack of proof of prejudice; the fact that *799defendant was free on bail for all but the first seven days after arrest; and the seriousness of the charges all clearly negate the possibility of a finding of a denial of a speedy trial. Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7741

TOMMY R. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM STRONG, Maryland Penitentiary Kitchen

Supervisor; SERGEANT MOORE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

2570-AMD)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tommy R. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's denial of his motions

for a temporary restraining order and for appointment of counsel.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
| NAME                                              |   | JURISDICTION      OF INCORPORATION |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                                              |   |                               |
| Integra      Bank NA                              |   | United      States                 |
|  *      IBNK Leasing Corp.                   |   | State      of Indiana              |
|  *      Integra Illinois Investment Co., LLC |   | State      of Delaware             |
|  **      Integra Loan Company, LLC           |   | State      of Delaware             |
|  ***      Total Title Services, LLC          |   | State      of Indiana              |
| Integra      Capital Trust II                     |   | State      of Delaware             |
| Integra      Capital Statutory Trust III          |   | State      of Connecticut          |
| Integra      Capital Statutory Trust IV           |   | State      of Delaware             |
| Integra      Capital Statutory Trust V            |   | State      of Delaware             |
| Integra      Reinsurance Company, LTD             |   | Turks      and Caicos Islands      |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KALVIN M. MCCULLOUGH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 24 MM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2021, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
----

| (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: March 12, 2010 |   /s/ G. Wilson Hughes |
|----------------------|-----------------------------|
|                 | G. Wilson Hughes            |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer     |
|                 | GCI, Inc.                   |

----
Appeal No. 76-49.

#### In re Irving Nardolillo.

*Julius C. Michael-son,*Attorney General, *Forrest Avila,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for appellant.

*Richard P. D’Addario, Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc.,*for appellee.

The appellee’s motion to extend the time for filing his brief is granted. The brief will be filed on or before April 15, 1977.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Granted and Order filed April 4, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-14-00265-CV

IN RE BELINDA MORALES

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-64486

ORDER

This court has reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus of relator, 

Belinda Morales. 

The court is of the opinion that relator’s petition requires further 

consideration. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b)(3). We therefore order the clerk of this 

court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, returnable on May 20, 2014, pending final 

determination of the relief requested in the petition. We further order that relator be 

discharged upon execution and filing of a bond as set forth below. See id. 
2

The relator will be admitted to bail upon her giving a good and sufficient 

bond, signed by relator as principal and her attorney, Alan B. Daughtry, as surety, 

conditioned as required by law, or by any other surety acceptable to the Sheriff of 

Harris County, or cash in lieu of bond, in the sum of five hundred dollars 

($500.00), pending the hearing on the return date of this writ, and until otherwise 

ordered by this court. 

A response to the petition is hereby requested to be filed on or before April 

14, 2014. The cause is set for submission without oral argument on May 20, 2014. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.
#### § 57.19120 Procedures for inspection, testing, and maintenance.

A systematic procedure of inspection, testing and maintenance of shaft and hoisting equipment shall be developed and followed. If it is found or suspected that any part is not functioning properly, the hoist shall not be used until the malfunction has been located and repaired or adjustments have been made.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsRarefaction effects on Galileo probe aerodynamicsSolutions of aerodynamic characteristics are presented for the Galileo Probe entering Jupiter's hydrogen-helium atmosphere at a nominal relative velocity of 47.4 km/s. Focus is on predicting the aerodynamic drag coefficient during the transitional flow regime using the direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method. Accuracy of the probe's drag coefficient directly impacts the inferred atmospheric properties that are being extracted from the deceleration measurements made by onboard accelerometers as part of the Atmospheric Structure Experiment. The range of rarefaction considered in the present study extends from the free molecular limit to continuum conditions. Comparisons made with previous calculations and experimental measurements show the present results for drag to merge well with Navier-Stokes and experimental results for the least rarefied conditions considered.Document ID19960044628Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMoss, James N.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*LeBeau, Gerald J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Blanchard, Robert C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Price, Joseph M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 24, 1996Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:111620NASA-TM-111620Accession Number96N32089Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960044628.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### §§ 285.600-285.601 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9608 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9608

      To make immune from liability any manufacturer of critical 
 infrastructure for claims resulting from wildfire incidents, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2024

Mrs. Miller-Meeks introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To make immune from liability any manufacturer of critical 
 infrastructure for claims resulting from wildfire incidents, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Limiting Liability for Critical 
Infrastructure Manufacturers Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

    Congress finds that the manufacture of critical infrastructure is 
necessary to ``strengthen and maintain secure, functioning, and 
resilient critical infrastructure'' (PPD-21, February 12, 2013).

SEC. 3. LIMITED LIABILITY.

    (a) In General.--Any manufacturer of critical infrastructure 
equipment shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and 
State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out 
of, relating to, or resulting from wildfire incidents, absent proof the 
manufacturer engaged in willful misconduct in the design or production 
of such equipment.
    (b) Critical Infrastructure Defined.--In this Act, the term 
``critical infrastructure'' has the meaning given such term in section 
1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195(e)).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32**

**Section 1350CertificationsPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to Section 906of 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 officersof Credit Suisse (USA), Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

1.                the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 of theCompany (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| May 11, 2006 |   | /s/  BRADY W. DOUGAN |
|-------------------|--------|----------------------|
|              |   | Name:                | Brady W. Dougan |
|              |   | Title:               | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
| May 11, 2006 |   | /s/ DAVID  C. FISHER |
|              |   | Name:                | David C. Fisher |
|              |   | Title:               | *Chief Financial and Accounting Officer* |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEPHEN ZEBROWSKI, JR., a/k/a Junior, a/k/a

Lewis Brady, a/k/a Stevon Green, a/k/a Edward

Cartwight, a/k/a Felex C. Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CR-96-41)

Submitted: June 4, 2002 Decided: June 24, 2002

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Zebrowski, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Zebrowski, Jr. appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion requesting “nunc pro tunc designation for an

order specifically setting aside” his fine. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Zebrowski’s challenge to his fine is precluded under res

judicata, because he previously litigated this claim. Allen v.

McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); Meekins v. United Transp. Union,

946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order denying Zebrowski’s motion. United States

v. Zebrowski, No. CR-96-41 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2002). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED