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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN FRANCIS WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:11-cr-00380-RWT-1; 8:13-cv-01893-RWT)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Francis Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Falk 

Lenzner, INVESTIGATIVE GROUP INTERNATIONAL, Washington, DC; 

Nicolas A. Mitchell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greenbelt, Maryland; Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Francis Washington seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 

Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Keith MAYDAK, as assignee for Confidential Services of America, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GTE CORP.; GTE Arkansas Incorporated; GTE California, Inc.; GTE Florida Incorporated; GTE Hawaiian Telephone Company Incorporated; GTE North Incorporated; GTE South Incorporated; GTE Southwest Incorporated; GTE Midwest Incorporated; Contel of California Incorporated, dba GTE California; Contel of Minnesota, dba GTE Minnesota; Contel of the *457South, dba GTE Systems of the South; Contel of Texas, dba GTE Texas; Contel of the West, dba GTE West, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-16086.

D.C. No. CV-98-00737-MJJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 21, 2001.

Before GOODWIN, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Keith Maydak appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the question of whether venue is proper, *see Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,*805 F.2d 834, 841 (9th Cir.1986), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for improper venue, *see Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,*122 F.3d 1251, 1253 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order dismissing for improper venue, entered on April 27, 1999.

We decline to «consider the declaration received on April 24, 2000.

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# L_2020241EN.01004601.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 241/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 241/46

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2020/740 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other parameters, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 177 of 5 June 2020
  )

On page 15, Annex I, part C:

for:

Image 1

read:

Image 2

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 AVANIR Pharmaceuticals (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gerald J. Yakatan, 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:

      (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.

                             /s/ GERALD J. YAKATAN, PH.D.
                           --------------------------------
                           Gerald J. Yakatan, Ph.D.
                           Chief Executive Officer

February 9, 2005
HomeBureau of Economic and Business Affairs...Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs  Releases

# Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Releases

		TAF Host Government Application for Assistance		

1977 items

        -    		Infrastructure Transaction Advisory Services	   
        -    Media Note  		Department of State and Arizona State University Announce New ITSI Initiative	  February 20, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Fernandez’s Travel to Atlanta and North Georgia	  February 19, 2024 
        -    Special Briefing  		Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian A. Nichols and Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Ramin Toloui Previewing Secretary Blinken’s Upcoming Travel to Argentina and Brazil	  February 16, 2024Via Teleconference 
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Persons Tied to Network Smuggling U.S. Technology to Central Bank of Iran	  Matthew MillerFebruary 14, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Call for Recommendations:  2024 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence	  February 12, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		United States to Co-Host the Sixth Indo-Pacific Business Forum	  February 12, 2024 
        -    		Learn More About the Department of State’s Delisting Process	   
        -    Remarks  		Assistant Secretary Geoffrey Pyatt’s Remarks to the 30th Annual HACC-NACC Shipping Conference	  Geoffrey R. PyattFebruary 6, 2024Hellenic-American and Norwegian American Annual Shipping ConferenceVirtual 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Toloui to Travel to Costa Rica for Americas Partnership Semiconductor Workforce Symposium	  January 24, 2024 

previous page1…34567…198next page

Back to Top
# Bureau of International Organization Affairs Releases

169 items

        -    		Virtual Travel to the United Nations, New York, March 29, 2021	   
        -    Special Briefing  		Briefing on Secretary Antony J. Blinken's Upcoming Virtual Travel to the United Nations	  Erica J.  Barks-RugglesMarch 26, 2021Via Teleconference 
        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Virtual Travel to the United Nations, New York	  Ned PriceMarch 26, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with UN High Commissioner for Refugees Grandi	  March 25, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Key Outcomes at the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council	  March 24, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Czech Prime Minister Babiš	  March 5, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan	  March 5, 2021 
        -    		Seeking Election to the UN Human Rights Council	  February 24, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Putting Human Rights at the Center of U.S. Foreign Policy	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 24, 2021 
        -    Video Remarks  		Remarks to the 46th Session of the Human Rights Council	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 22, 2021 

previous page1…1314151617next page

Back to Top
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 26, 2018

No. 04-17-00465-CV

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ALICE,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE SELF-INSURANCE FUND aka Texas Municipal League 

Intergovernmental Risk Pool,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-03-54404-CV

Honorable Oscar (O.J.) Hale, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s unopposed motion to extend time to file motion for rehearing and motion 

for en banc reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to October 24, 2018. 

Further requests for extension of time in which to file appellant’s motion for rehearing will 

be disfavored.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26450]

[[Page 66368]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9918-92-Region-6]

Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement concerning the EXPLO Systems, Inc., Superfund 
Site (``Site''), generally located on a portion of Camp Minden, Webster 
Parrish, Louisiana.
    This Settlement Agreement provides for the performance of a removal 
action by Settling Respondent, the payment of certain response costs 
incurred by Settling Respondent by the Settling Federal Agency, and the 
payment of certain response costs incurred by the United States, by the 
Settling Respondent at or in connection with the Site.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``Agency'') will 
receive written comments solely on the Agency's cost recovery 
component, at Paragraphs 38.a and 38.1a, of this Settlement Agreement. 
The Agency may withhold consent from or seek to modify the Agency's 
cost recovery component, at Paragraphs 38.a and 38.1a, of the 
Settlement Agreement, if comments received disclose facts or 
considerations which indicate that the Settlement Agreement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Cynthia Brown at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-7480. Comments 
should reference the EXPLO Systems, Inc., Superfund Site, Camp Minden, 
Webster Parrish, Louisiana, and EPA Docket Number 06-08-14, and should 
be addressed to Cynthia Brown at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Malone, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-
8030.

    Dated: October 22, 2014.
James McDonald,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-26450 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHUYING LIANG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71224 

Agency No. A099-903-949 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 7, 2018**

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Shuying Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration 

judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence the 

 

* 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

MAR 12 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not 

recount them here. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Liang’s testimony and the household registries, 

and Liang’s inconsistent testimony as to whether she was under residential 

surveillance following her release from detention. See id. at 1048 (holding that the

adverse credibility finding was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). 

Liang’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. See 

Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Contrary to Liang’s 

contention, the agency was entitled to discount the abortion certificate she 

submitted because the document was issued sixteen years after her alleged forced 

abortion and was obtained through suspect means. See Lin v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 

1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that the agency may discount the probative 

value of documents if the record “include[s] some evidence undermining their 

reliability, such that a reviewing court can objectively verify whether the IJ has a 

legitimate basis to distrust the documents” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)). 
3 

In the absence of credible testimony, Liang’s asylum and withholding of 

removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Liang’s CAT claim also fails because it rests on the same evidence

the agency found not credible, and Liang points to no other evidence in the record 

that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by,

or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official in China. See id. at 1156-

57.

PETITION DENIED.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 370.8 Are there any requirements related to a prenotification entry? ( a ) *Use of prenotification in our discretion.* In our discretion, we may initiate a prenotification entry to a financial institution before we send a credit entry. We may also send a prenotification message whenever there is a change in the payment instructions. If we send a prenotification message, we will follow the time frames as established by the Operating Rules of the National Automated Clearing House Association. A prenotification is a zero-dollar ACH entry that can help us determine whether there might be problems with sending a subsequent credit entry.
( b ) *Requirements placed upon financial institution that receives a prenotification.* A financial institution must respond to a prenotification within the time frame for such responses as established by the Operating Rules of the National Automated Clearing House Association. If the receiving financial institution does not respond to the prenotification message within the specified time period, we may interpret the nonresponsiveness as the financial institution's agreement to this subpart. Furthermore, a financial institution warrants by its nonresponsiveness that the deposit account number and the type of account contained in the prenotification entry message was accurate as of the moment the financial institution received it.
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of H.T., a Child

No. 06

- 23

- 00091

- CV Appeal from the 307th District Court of

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2022

- 1064

- DR ). Memorandum Opinion

delivered by Ju stice van Cleef

, Chief

Justice Stevens and Justice Rambin

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant s to

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant s pay all costs incurred by reason of t his appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 24, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
§ 16.7 Complaint. ( a ) On or after the date the Attorney General or his designee approves the issuance of a complaint in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), the reviewing official may serve a complaint on the defendant, as provided in § 16.8.
( b ) The complaint shall state— ( 1 ) The allegations of liability against the defendant, including the statutory basis for liability, an identification of the claims or statements that are the basis for the alleged liability, and the reasons why liability allegedly arises from such claims or statements;
( 2 ) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which the defendant may be held liable;
( 3 ) Instructions for filing an answer to request a hearing, including a specific statement of the defendant's right to request a hearing by filing an answer and to be represented by an attorney;
( 4 ) That the defendant has a right to review and obtain certain information pursuant to Section 16.20 herein; and
( 5 ) That failure to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint will result in the imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments without right to appeal.
( c ) At the same time the reviewing official serves the complaint on the defendant(s), he or she shall serve the defendant with a copy of these regulations.
Request for Temporary Increase, dated June 26, 2012



 Exhibit 10.2 
 REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INCREASE 
 Bank of America, N.A. 

One Bryant Park, 11th floor 
 New York, New York
10036 
 NY1-100-11-01 

Attention: Eileen Albus 
  

	 	Re:	The Amended and Restated Master Repurchase Agreement, dated as of October 21, 2010 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the
“Repurchase Agreement”), between Bank of America, N.A. (“Buyer”) and Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Seller”) 

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 In accordance with Section 2.10 of the
Repurchase Agreement, Buyer hereby consents to a Temporary Increase of the Aggregate Transaction Limit as further set forth below: 
 Temporary Modification to Aggregate Transaction Limit: + $75,000,000 
 Temporary
Aggregate Transaction Limit: $375,000,000 
 Temporary Modification to Uncommitted Amount: + $75,000,000 

Modified Uncommitted Amount: $200,000,000 
 Effective date: June 27, 2012 
 Termination date: August 24,
2012 
 On and after the effective date indicated above and until the termination date indicated above, the Aggregate
Transaction Limit and Uncommitted Amount shall equal the Temporary Aggregate Transaction Limit and the Modified Uncommitted Amount, as applicable, indicated above for all purposes of the Repurchase Agreement and all calculations and provisions
relating to the Aggregate Transaction Limit and Uncommitted Amount, as applicable shall refer to the Temporary Aggregate Transaction Limit and the Modified Uncommitted Amount, as applicable including without limitation, Type Sublimits. Unless
otherwise terminated pursuant to the Repurchase Agreement, this Temporary Increase shall terminate on the termination date indicated above. Upon the termination of this Temporary Increase, Seller shall repurchase Purchased Assets such that the
Aggregate Outstanding Purchase Price does not exceed the Aggregate Transaction Limit. Seller shall repurchase Purchased Assets in order to reduce the Aggregate Outstanding Purchase Price to the Aggregate Transaction Limit (as reduced by the
termination of such Temporary Increase) in accordance with Section 4.2(j) of the Repurchase Agreement. 
 All terms
used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Repurchase Agreement. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC 

By: /s/ Gregory
Oniu                                        

       Name: Gregory Oniu 

      Title: Vice President 
 Agreed and Consented by: 
 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Buyer 

By: /s/ Rayanthi De
Mel                                 

        Name: Rayanthi De Mel 
         Title: Assistant Vice President, Bank of 

                  America, N.A. 

Date:
6/26/12
#### § 542.305 Entity.

The term *entity* means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.

[79 FR 25416, May 2, 2014. Redesignated at 89 FR 48317, June 6, 2024]
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Mariano  Saguach

# 				Mariano  Saguach			

				Local Guard Force			

Deceased				July 15, 2009			

**(U.S. Government image)**Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialGuatemala

Back to Top