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

except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Miranda Du, District Judge for the U.S. District Court **

for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ACHMAD KARIM and FNU ERTA,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70951

Agency Nos. A075-763-795

A075-763-796

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted June 7, 2013

Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DU, District Judge.** 

Achmad Karim and Fnu Erta petition for review of the decision by the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen as untimely because

FILED

JUN 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Petitioners failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition. 

Petitioners submitted, among other documents, a declaration from Karim in

support of their motion to reopen. The BIA did not acknowledge the declaration,

nor did it address the facts contained therein. While the BIA does not need to

“discuss each piece of evidence submitted,” “where there is any indication that the

BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it, . . . the decision cannot stand.” 

Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, because the BIA

failed to even acknowledge the declaration, it is not possible to conclusively

determine whether the BIA considered this information. Therefore, we grant the

petition for review and remand for further proceedings for the BIA to specifically

address the evidence raised in the declaration. See Franco–Rosendo v. Gonzales,

454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to

consider and address in its entirety the evidence submitted by a petitioner and to

issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying a motion to reopen.”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
(79 South. 153)

#### LASBY v. STATE.

(6 Div. 468.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 7, 1918.)

Criminal Laiv <&wkey;1122(5) — Appeal—Record —Refused Charges.

The refusal of charges cannot be reviewed; the record not containing, as required by Acts 1915, p. 815, the oral charge, and there being no bill of exceptions.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson 'County; Chas. W. Ferguson,. Judge.

Peary Lasby, alias, etc., was convicted of statutory rape, and appeals.

Affirmed.

F. Loyd Tate. Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

This case was submitted on the record proper. There is no bill of exceptions, and the-trial judge’s certificate, shown by the transcript, states that the time for presenting a,bill of exceptions had expired, and no bill had been tendered. The record contains the given and refused charges requested in writing by the defendant, but does not contain the general oral charge of the court, as required by law. Acts 1915, p. 815. Tbis court, in tbe absence of a bill of exceptions and tbe oral charge of the court, cannot review the charges which were refused to the defendant. Mitchell v. State, 14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. 982.

The record proper shows an indictment in due and regular form, charging the defendant with the offense of having carnal knowledge of a female child under the age of 12 years, and there was a verdict of guilty as charged; the punishment being fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 10 years, and a judgment of the court in conformity with the finding of the jury. An examination of the record shows regular proceedings, and nothing authorizing a reversal of the case, and an affirmance of the judgment appealed from is therefore ordered.

Affirmed.
§ 105.290 Additional requirements—cruise ship terminals. At all MARSEC Levels, in coordination with a vessel moored at the facility, the facility owner or operator must ensure the following security measures: ( a ) Screen all persons, baggage, and personal effects for dangerous substances and devices in accordance with the requirements in subpart E of this part. The owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal need not duplicate any provisions fulfilled by the vessel. When a provision is fulfilled by a vessel, the applicable section of the terminal security program (TSP) must refer to that fact.
( b ) Check the identification of all persons seeking to enter the facility in accordance with §§ 101.514, 101.515, and 105.255 of this subchapter. Persons holding a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) must be checked as set forth in subpart E of part 101 of this subchapter. For persons not holding a TWIC, this check includes confirming the individual's validity for boarding by examining passenger tickets, boarding passes, government identification or visitor badges, or work orders;
( c ) Designate holding, waiting, or embarkation areas within the facility's secure area to segregate screened persons and their personal effects awaiting embarkation from unscreened persons and their personal effects;
( d ) Provide additional security personnel to designated holding, waiting, or embarkation areas within the facility's secure area; and
( e ) Deny individuals not holding a TWIC access to secure and restricted areas unless escorted.
[USCG-2006-24196, 72 FR 3585, Jan. 25, 2007, as amended by USCG-2006-23846, 83 FR 12102, Mar. 19, 2018; USCG-2007-28915, 81 FR 57712, Aug. 23, 2016]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on April 21, 2000, American Radiolabeled Chemical, Inc., 11624 Bowling Green Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63146, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of gamma hydroxybutyric acid (2010), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule I.

The firm plans to bulk manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substance as radiolabeled compound.

Any other such applicant and any person who is prsently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration.

Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than July 31, 2000.

Dated: May 19, 2000. 

John H. King,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-13439  Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### PATRICK NEMHARD *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 18472)

O'Connell, C. J., and Laveiy and Hennessy, Js.

Argued October 18, 1999

officially released February 1, 2000

*528
      *Avery S. Chapman,*for the appellant (petitioner).

*Ellen A. Jawitz,*assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *James E. Thomas,*state’s attorney, and *David I. Cohen,*supervisory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Patrick Nemhard, appeals from the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that his counsel failed to recognize that his ability to knowingly and intelligently enter into the plea agreement was substantially impaired by medication he was taking.

We have fully reviewed the records and briefs and considered the oral arguments of both parties. In his appeal, the petitioner relies on fact bound issues and has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a state or federal constitutional right and, further, has failed to sustain his burden of persuasion that the denial of certification to appeal was a clear abuse of discretion or that an injustice had been done. See *Simms*v. *Warden,*230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994); *Simms*v. *Warden,*229 Conn. 178, 189, 640 A.2d 601 (1994); *Walker v. Commissioner of Correction,*38 Conn. App. 99, 100, 659 A.2d 195, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 100 (1995); see also *Lozada*v. *Deeds,*498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991).

The habeas court’s denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was based on a factual review of his claim and a finding that (1) he had been evaluated by a clinical team, including a psychiatrist, who found him competent to stand trial, (2) he had assisted in jury *529selection, (3) he had exhibited no mental deficits during the proceedings and that (4) his attorney was not aware that he was taking medication. Accordingly, the habeas court concluded that the petitioner had failed to carry the burden of proof required to establish that he was not competent to stand trial.

We conclude that the habeas court had before it sufficient evidence to find that the petitioner was competent to enter his guilty plea and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 345 

Supporting the work of firefighters to educate and protect the Nation’s 

communities, and the goals and ideals of Fire Prevention Week, October 

7–13, 2007, as designated by the National Fire Protection Association. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 15, 2007 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. DODD, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. 

LEAHY) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the work of firefighters to educate and protect 

the Nation’s communities, and the goals and ideals of 

Fire Prevention Week, October 7–13, 2007, as designated by the National Fire Protection Association. 

Whereas firefighters have maintained their dedication to the 

health and safety of the American public since the first 

American fire departments were organized in the colonial 

era; 

Whereas today’s firefighters provide a multitude of services, 

including emergency medical services, special rescue response, hazardous material and terrorism response, and 

public safety education; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•SRES 345 ATS 

Whereas more than 1,130,000 firefighters protect the United 

States through their heroic service; 

Whereas the Nation’s fire departments respond to emergency 

calls nearly once per second and dispatch to fire emergencies every 20 seconds; 

Whereas approximately 1,600,000 fires are reported annually; 

Whereas firefighters respond with courage to all disasters, 

whether they be acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or 

other emergencies; 

Whereas 343 firefighters sacrificed their lives responding heroically to the events of September 11, 2001; 

Whereas firefighters from across the Nation responded with 

remarkable selflessness throughout the areas affected by 

Hurricane Katrina; 

Whereas 89 firefighters lost their lives in 2006, and over 

80,000 were injured in the line of duty; 

Whereas we have honored firefighters for educating the 

American public since President Harding declared the 

first Fire Prevention Week in 1922; 

Whereas the National Fire Protection Association has designated the week of October 7–13, 2007 as Fire Prevention Week; and 

Whereas educating Americans on methods of fire prevention 

and escape planning continues to be a priority for all firefighters: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the work of firefighters to educate 

3 and protect the Nation’s communities; and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•SRES 345 ATS 

1 (2) supports the goals and ideals of Fire Pre2 vention Week, October 7–13, 2007, as designated by 

3 the National Fire Protection Association. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CCBT Financial
Companies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 , as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer for the
Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

      This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B)
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.


/s/ STEPHEN B. LAWSON, President and Chief Executive Officer
------------------------------------------------------------
  Stephen B. Lawson, President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 7, 2003


                                       22
# Pennsylvania

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SECRETARY July 8, 2015

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Re: Attainment Date Extension Request forthePhiladelphia andPittsburgh-Beaver Valley 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Dear Mr. Garvin: 

### Pursuant to Section 181(a)(5) of theFederal Clean AirAct(CAA), 1amrequesting, onbehalfof the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, that theU.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) extend by 

### one year the July 20, 2015, attainment date for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in thePhiladelphia and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Areas. This attainment dateextension request pertains to the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-DE-NJ-MD) Ozone Nonattainment Area andthePittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Ozone Nonattainment Area (whichis comprised ofAllegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,Fayette, Washington andWestmoreland Counties). EPAclassified these areas as "marginal" ozone nonattainment areas, effective July 20, 2012. 

### As prescribed in Section 182(a) ofthe CAA, "marginal" ozone nonattainment areas should attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2015. Nonetheless, Section 181(a)(5) of the CAA authorizes EPAto grant up to two one-year extensions of the attainment date. To this end, 1am certifying thefollowing for a one-year attainment date extension to July 20,2016, for eachof the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Areas: 1) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to these areas in the applicable ozone implementation plans. 2) The Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-DE-NJ-MD) Ozone Nonattainment Area's 4th highest daily 8-hour monitored value during the 2014 ozone season is 0.075 ppm or less. 3) The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area's 4th highest daily 8-hour ozone value during the 2014 ozone season is 0.075 ppm or less.

Rachel Carson State Office Building | P.O. Box 2063 | Harrlsburg, PA 17105-2063 717.787.2814 www.depweb.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled Paper O ^ ^Mr. Shawn M. Garvin -2- July 8, 2015
Enclosed are letters submitted to EPAcertifying thatPennsylvania's ozone air qualitydata in the 

### EPA AirQuality System for thePhiladelphia and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Areas is complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring dataforthe 2014 ozone season. 

### Thank you inadvance for your expedited consideration ofthe requested one-year extensions of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date forthePhiladelphia andPittsburgh-Beaver Valley 

### Areas. Should youhave questions orneed additional information, please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director, Bureau of Air Quality, by e-mail atjeepps@.pa.gov or bytelephone at 717.787.9702. Sincerely,

Dhn Quigley Secretary

Enclosures

### John Quigley - 3 - June 26, 2015

bee: Kirit Dalai Randy Bordner Kristen Furlan Alex Haas File
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

D’ANDRE BANNISTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-915

[September 1, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kirk Volker, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. 502002CF009204A.

D’Andre Bannister, Punta Gorda, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
| 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 31, 2010 |   | /s/ R. LaDuane Clifton  |
|----------------|--------|------------------------------|
|           |   | Name:                        | R. LaDuane Clifton |
|           |   | Title:                       | Chief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |
§ 95.14 Special award conditions. If an applicant or recipient: ( a ) Has a history of poor performance,
( b ) Is not financially stable,
( c ) Has a management system that does not meet the standards prescribed in this part,
( d ) Has not conformed to the terms and conditions of a previous award, or
( e ) Is not otherwise responsible,
DOL may impose additional requirements as needed, provided that such applicant or recipient is notified in writing as to: The nature of the additional requirements, the reason why the additional requirements are being imposed, the nature of the corrective action needed, the time allowed for completing the corrective actions, and the method for requesting reconsideration of the additional requirements imposed. Any special conditions shall be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been corrected.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

(As of June 30, 2011)



|                                                                                             |  |                        |  |           |        |  
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------- | ------ | -
|Subsidiary                                                                                   |  | State of Incorporation |  | Ownership |       
|Nautilus Poplar, LLC                                                                         |  |                        |  |           | 83.50  | %
|Magellan Petroleum Australia Limited                                                         |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Magellan Petroleum Australia Limited owns the following subsidiaries directly or indirectly: |  |                        |  |           |        |  
|Magellan Petroleum (N.T.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Paroo Petroleum Pty. Ltd.                                                                    |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Paroo Petroleum (Holdings), Inc.                                                             |  | Delaware, U.S.A.       |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Paroo Petroleum (USA), Inc.                                                                  |  | Delaware, U.S.A.       |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Magellan Petroleum (W.A.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Magellan Petroleum (U.K.) Limited                                                            |  | United Kingdom         |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Eastern) Pty. Ltd.                                                       |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 100.00 | %
|United Oil & Gas Co. (N.T.) Pty. Ltd.                                                        |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Qld.) Pty. Ltd.                                                          |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 80.00  | %
|Magellan Petroleum (Offshore) Pty. Ltd.                                                      |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 100.00 | %
|Jarl Pty. Ltd.                                                                               |  | Queensland, Australia  |  |           | 100.00 | %