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).

The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, Senior United States District Judge ***

for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL DE JESUS MORALES LOPEZ

and DORA ALBERTINA DELEON

MORALES,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74866

Agency Nos. A073-220-464

 A077-847-251

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District

Judge.*** 

FILED

MAY 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Manuel Morales Lopez and Dora DeLeon Morales appeal from a decision by

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the Immigration Judge’s

(“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Their joint application rests on

an attack Lopez claims he suffered in Guatemala. After identifying material

inconsistencies between descriptions of the attack Lopez provided in his

application, at his asylum interview, and at his merits hearing, the IJ determined

that Lopez was not credible and denied both petitioners relief. 

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial

evidence that Lopez testified inconsistently about events that formed the basis of

the petitioners’ asylum claim. Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.

2011). The IJ provided Lopez the opportunity to explain his inconsistencies and

addressed why his explanations were unpersuasive. Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555

F.3d 1089, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2009). Lopez argues that the IJ placed too much

weight on the absence of corroborating testimony from his brother, but even

according this potential basis for an adverse credibility finding no weight, the other

grounds for the IJ’s adverse credibility decision were supported by substantial

evidence. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The petitioners also seek review of the IJ’s decision to deny voluntary
3

departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the grant or denial of voluntary

departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030

(9th Cir. 2010). Although we may review questions of law related to voluntary

departure, the IJ’s decision was discretionary as to both petitioners and presents no

questions of law. Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.209 Procedures for deferral of applications.

Within twenty-eight (28) days after the filing of an application under this subpart, the DOT decisionmaker may defer further processing of the application until all of the information necessary to process that application is submitted. The time periods contained in this subpart with respect to the disposition of the application shall not begin to run until the application is complete. In addition, the DOT decisionmaker may defer action on a foreign air carrier permit application for foreign policy reasons.
#### HIBBS v. THE STATE.

(Decided June 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Gadsden City Court.

Heard before Hon. J. A. Bilbro.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
#### MOORE, EXECUTRIX, v. UNITED STATES

[80 C. Cls. 842; 296 U. S. 583]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court October 14, 1935.
#### The Trustees of the Sailors’ Snug Harbor in the City of New York, Appellants, *v.*M. *&*H. Lassaw Realty Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.

Argued March 3, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*E. J. Dimock, Barent L, Visscher, Glen W. Watkins*and *Joseph G. Kelly*for appellant.

*E. Robert Willcox*and J. *Donald Whelehan*for Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as rehabilitator of Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company, et al., respondents.

*610Orders reversed, with costs in all courts, and matter remitted to Special Term to proceed in accordance with the opinion in *Heiman*v. *Bishop*(272 N. Y. 83). No opinion.

¡Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 36.3 Compatibility with airworthiness requirements.

It must be shown that the aircraft meets the airworthiness regulations constituting the type certification basis of the aircraft under all conditions in which compliance with this part is shown, and that all procedures used in complying with this part, and all procedures and information for the flight crew developed under this part, are consistent with the airworthiness regulations constituting the type certification basis of the aircraft.

[Doc. No. 9337, 34 FR 18364, Nov. 18, 1969, as amended by Amdt. 36-14, 53 FR 3540, Feb. 5, 1988]
EXHIBIT F 

Schedule of Hours Worked and Aggregate Fees for Each Matter Category 

Matter Total Billed 

Hours Total Fees 

Project Meetings 252.90 $37,011.50

Project Management 213.20 $28,833.50

Website Development and Management 171.20 $16,674.00

Total 637.30 $82,519.00 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3536-6 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:53:09 Desc:

Exhibit F Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Loreto Tarantelli et al., Respondents, against City of Corning et al., Appellants.

(Argued September 28, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*Halsey Sayles*and *Clarence H. Brisco*for appellants.

*Guernsey B. Hubbard*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4452 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4452

   To prohibit Federal employees from downloading or using WeChat on 
                          Government devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 5, 2020

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit Federal employees from downloading or using WeChat on 
                          Government devices.

    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 ``WeChat No More Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM DOWNLOADING OR USING 
              WECHAT ON GOVERNMENT DEVICES.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the terms ``congressional employee'', ``Government 
        corporation'', ``Member of Congress'', and ``officer'' have the 
        meanings given such terms in section 2107, 103, 2106, and 2104 
        of title 5, United States Code, respectively; and
            (2) the term ``Federal employee''--
                    (A) means an employee of any establishment or 
                office in the executive, legislative, or judicial 
                branch of the Federal Government; and
                    (B) includes a congressional employee.
    (b) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (c), no Federal 
employee, officer, Member of Congress, or officer or employee of a 
Government corporation may download or use on any device issued or 
provided by the United States or a Government corporation WeChat, or 
any successor application that is developed by Tencent Holdings 
Limited, an entity owned by Tencent Holdings Limited, a successor to 
Tencent Holdings Limited, or an entity owned by a successor to Tencent 
Holdings Limited.
    (c) Exception.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to downloading or 
using an application on a device issued by the United States or a 
Government corporation in connection with the duties of a Federal 
employee, officer, Member of Congress, or officer or employee of a 
Government corporation relating to cybersecurity research, conducting 
an investigation, pursuing an enforcement action, a disciplinary 
action, or an intelligence activity.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual
Report on Form 10-K of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report), I, Michael E. McConnell, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.



March 26, 2003

By:

/s/    MICHAEL E.
MCCONNELLMichael E. McConnell Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION


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)





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 Unit Corporation a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 and for the three month periods ended March 31, 2010 and 2009.








Dated: May 4, 2010





By: /s/ Larry D. Pinkston


Larry D. Pinkston


Chief Executive Officer and


Director








Dated: May 4, 2010





By: /s/ David T. Merrill


David T. Merrill


Chief Financial Officer and


Treasurer








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Unit Corporation and will be retained by Unit Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff on request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Daniel
O. Wilds, President and 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

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 forwarded to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                           /s/ Daniel O. Wilds
                                           _____________________________________
                                           Daniel O. Wilds
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                           May 13, 2003

                                       29
#### Elsie V. K. Wollen, Appellant, *v.*B. Edmund David, Inc., Respondent, Impleaded with Another.

(Argued October 19, 1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

*627
      *Harry Bijur*and *Filbert L. Rosenstein*for appellant.

*Eugene L. Bondy*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, and Loughran, JJ. Dissenting: Crouch and Finch, JJ.
#### § 406.103 Definitions that apply in part 406.

For the purpose of this part:

*Administrative law judge* means an administrative law judge appointed pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3105.

*Attorney* means a person licensed by a state, the District of Columbia, or a territory of the United States to practice law or appear before the courts of that state or territory.

*Complainant* in a civil penalty action means the proponent of the civil penalty in the FAA.

*FAA decisionmaker* means the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, acting in the capacity of the decisionmaker on appeal; or a person who has been delegated the authority to act for the FAA decisionmaker. As used in this part, the FAA decisionmaker is the official authorized to issue a final decision and order of the Secretary in an action.

*Mail* means U.S. first class mail, U.S. certified mail, U.S. registered mail, or an express courier service.

*Party* means the respondent or the complainant.

*Personal delivery* includes hand-delivery or use of a same-day messenger service. “Personal delivery” does not include the use of Government interoffice mail service.

*Properly addressed* means using an address contained in agency records; a residential, business, or other address used by a person on any document submitted under this part; or any other address determined by other reasonable and available means.

*Respondent* means a person who has been charged with a violation.
§ 27.1351 General. ( a ) *Electrical system capacity.* Electrical equipment must be adequate for its intended use. In addition— ( 1 ) Electric power sources, their transmission cables, and their associated control and protective devices must be able to furnish the required power at the proper voltage to each load circuit essential for safe operation; and
( 2 ) Compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be shown by an electrical load analysis, or by electrical measurements that take into account the electrical loads applied to the electrical system, in probable combinations and for probable durations.
( b ) *Function.* For each electrical system, the following apply: ( 1 ) Each system, when installed, must be— ( i ) Free from hazards in itself, in its method of operation, and in its effects on other parts of the rotorcraft; and
( ii ) Protected from fuel, oil, water, other detrimental substances, and mechanical damage.
( 2 ) Electric power sources must function properly when connected in combination or independently.
( 3 ) No failure or malfunction of any source may impair the ability of any remaining source to supply load circuits essential for safe operation.
( 4 ) Each electric power source control must allow the independent operation of each source.
( c ) *Generating system.* There must be at least one generator if the system supplies power to load circuits essential for safe operation. In addition— ( 1 ) Each generator must be able to deliver its continuous rated power;
( 2 ) Generator voltage control equipment must be able to dependably regulate each generator output within rated limits;
( 3 ) Each generator must have a reverse current cutout designed to disconnect the generator from the battery and from the other generators when enough reverse current exists to damage that generator; and
( 4 ) Each generator must have an overvoltage control designed and installed to prevent damage to the electrical system, or to equipment supplied by the electrical system, that could result if that generator were to develop an overvoltage condition.
( d ) *Instruments.* There must be means to indicate to appropriate crewmembers the electric power system quantities essential for safe operation of the system. In addition— ( 1 ) For direct current systems, an ammeter that can be switched into each generator feeder may be used; and
( 2 ) If there is only one generator, the ammeter may be in the battery feeder.
( e ) *External power.* If provisions are made for connecting external power to the rotorcraft, and that external power can be electrically connected to equipment other than that used for engine starting, means must be provided to ensure that no external power supply having a reverse polarity, or a reverse phase sequence, can supply power to the rotorcraft's electrical system.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55470, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 27-13, 42 FR 36972, July 18, 1977]
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Barry W. Tackett, Principal Financial 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 and belief:

 (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/ Barry W. Tackett
Barry W. Tackett, Principal Financial Officer

Date: March 30, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement 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.
#### Leslie N. Heatherton, Respondent, *v.*James M. Heatherton et al., Appellants.

(Argued November 16, 1936;

decided November 18, 1936.)

*621
      *William D. Cunningham*for motion.

*I. Maurice Wormser*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### § 33.62 Stress analysis.

A stress analysis must be performed on each turbine engine showing the design safety margin of each turbine engine rotor, spacer, and rotor shaft.

[Amdt. 33-6, 39 FR 35466, Oct. 1, 1974]
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

The Board of Directorsand Stockholders

24/7 Real Media, Inc.:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-118747, 333-112729,333-111991, 333-109925, 333-108422, 333-106252, 333-100583, 333-89985, 333-47074,and 333-34020) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-122041, 333-100582, 333-87714, 333-83287,333-66995, 333-56308, and 333-35306) on Form S-8 of 24/7 Real Media, Inc.of our reports dated March 6, 2006, related to the consolidated financialstatements of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005, andon management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31,2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of 24/7 Real Media, Inc.

 

 
|                 | /s/ GOLDSTEIN  GOLUB KESSLER LLP |   |
|----------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                 |
| New York, NY         |
| March 15,  2006 |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7104

MARSHALL LEE BROWN, JR.,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC HOOKS,

 Respondent - Appellee,

and

KEN BEAVER,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00092-MR)

Submitted: April 29, 2021 Decided: May 11, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion to reconsider. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district 

court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We deny Brown’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

●

● ●

●