alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6151

COREY DESEAN HOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-944-5-BO) Submitted: April 20, 2001 Decided: June 12, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey DeSean Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Corey DeSean Hood appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error in its conclusion that Hood has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See § 2255 ¶ 5; Jeffers v. Chandler , 234 F.3d 277, 280 (5th Cir. 2000). However, we modify the district court’s order to reflect a dismissal without prejudice, in order to allow Hood to refile his petition at such time as he is able to make such a demonstration. We dispense with oral argument because the factsand legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 19, 2016

No. 04

- 14

- 00897

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM THOMAS BOOTH

,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- PC

- 2786

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

S itting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The court has considered the appe llant ’ s motion for en banc reconsideration, and the

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of September, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors
of GumTech International, Inc.

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  following  Registration
Statements of Gum Tech  International,  Inc. and any amendments  thereto (1) No.
333-06199 on Form S-8; (2) No.  333-34019 on Form S-8; (3) No. 333-28821 on Form
S-3;  (4) No.  333-38555  on Form S-3;  (5) No.  333-82253  on Form S-3; (6) No.
333-91679  on Form S-3 and (7) No.  333-30194  on Form S-3 of our  report  dated
February  5,  2000,  relating  to the  consolidated  balance  sheet  of Gum Tech
International,   Inc.  as  of  December  31,  1999  and  1998  and  the  related
consolidated  statements of operations,  cash flows and changes in stockholders'
equity for the years  ended  December  31,  1999,  1998 and 1997,  which  report
appears or is  incorporated  by reference in the December 31, 1999 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Gum Tech International, Inc.

                                        /s/ Angell & Deering

Denver, Colorado
March 29, 2000
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JENNIFER ELIZABETH DIAZ

MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71114 Agency No. A076

- 359

- 558

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 13 , 2016 ** Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges

. Jennifer Elizabeth Diaz

- Martinez , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrati on Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigrat ion judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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). 

# FILED

APR 18 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71114

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) , and review de novo due process contentions,
Sandova l

- Luna v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 1243, 12 46 (9th Cir. 2008) . We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
W e lack jurisdiction to consider Diaz

- Martinez’s contentions as to the agency’s finding that she was convicted of a particularly serious crime because she
did not exhaust them before the BIA

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) . We therefore dismiss the petition as to Diaz

- Martinez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. Similarly, we lac k jurisdiction to consider Diaz

- Martinez’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claim because she did not exhaust it in the form of a motion to reopen before the BIA. See Ontiveros

- Lopez v. INS , 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We . . . require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel
to exhau st his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA.”) ; Puga v. Chertoff

, 488 F.3d 812 , 815

- 16 (9 th Cir. 2007) ( acknowledging a motion to reopen is not a remedy as of right, and requiring administrative exhaustion of an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim )

.3 15

- 71114

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Diaz

Martinez’s CAT claim because s he failed to establish it is more likely than not s he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Silaya , 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part

.
§ 4.07-10 Report of investigation. ( a ) At the conclusion of the investigation the investigating officer shall submit to the Commandant via the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and the District Commander, a full and complete report of the facts as determined by his investigation, together with his opinions and recommendations in the premises. The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and the District Commander shall forward the investigating officer's report to the Commandant with an endorsement stating: ( 1 ) Approval or otherwise of the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations;
( 2 ) Any action taken with respect to the recommendations;
( 3 ) Whether or not any action has been or will be taken under part 5 of this subchapter to suspend or revoke credentials; and,
( 4 ) Whether or not violations of laws or regulations relating to vessels have been reported.
( b ) At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigating officer shall submit the report described in paragraph (a) of this section, to the Commandant via the Merchant Marine Detail Officer or the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and the Commander, Coast Guard MIO Europe for a European port or Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard for an Asian or Pacific port. The Merchant Marine Detail Officer or the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and Commander, Coast Guard MIO Europe or Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard District shall forward the investigating officer's report to the Commandant with the endorsement described in paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of this section.
[CGD 74-119, 39 FR 33317, Sept. 17, 1974, as amended by CGD 75-196, 41 FR 18655, May 6, 1976; CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51042, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11214, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2016-0498, 82 FR 35089, July 28, 2017]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALEXANDER WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 694 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2013101EN.01000502.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/5

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak

(Case C-31/12) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 101/10

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem

Criminal proceedings against

Criminal proceedings against

Wojciech Ziemski, Andrzej Kozak

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem — Interpretation of the concept of ‘technical regulation’ in Article 1.11 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18) — Obligation on the part of a Member State to communicate to the Commission all draft technical regulations — Law of a Member State concerning games of chance

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Zakopanem (Poland), by decision of 13 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
§ 169.709 Compass. ( a ) Each vessel must be fitted with a magnetic steering compass.
( b ) Each vessel certificated for exposed water service must have an emergency compass in addition to the one required in paragraph (a).
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending October 15, 2005

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
# C_2014102EN.01000501.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/5

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — J v European Parliament

(Case C-550/12 P) (1)

1

((Article 227 TFEU - Right of petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action - Subject not falling within an area of activity of the European Union))

2014/C 102/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: J (represented by: A. Auer, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by Mr J seeking annulment of the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010 to shelve the appellant’s petition of 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009) without taking any further action — Lack of reasoning — Infringement of fundamental rights.

J

Parliament

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The application for legal aid is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application for legal aid is dismissed.

| 3. | J shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

J shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
# C_2013336EN.01001901.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Rovi Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi (ROVI Pharmaceuticals)

(Case T-97/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ROVI Pharmaceuticals - Earlier Community figurative mark ROVI and earlier national word mark ROVIFARMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)

2013/C 336/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH (Schlüchtern, Germany) (represented by: M. Berghofer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2010 (Case R 500/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA and Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred by Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred by Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6037

ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. Halsey HARRIS, Regional Obudsman; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Assistant Warden of Operation and Security; JAMILA F. BURNEY, Assistant Warden of Housing and Programs; RICK E. WHITE, Senior Counselor; MICHAEL SHAWN EDWARDS, Chaplin; RUFUS ROBINSON, Unit Manager; L. MURPHY, Grievance Coordinator; SERGEANT PARHAM, Correctional Officer; MR. APPEL, Registered Nurse; LIEUTENANT HAMLETTE; JOHN DOE, IV; OFFICER KELLY; SERGEANT TISCHLER, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-778) Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 1, 2004
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Anthony Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Carlton Hollowell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; John David McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing the claims against Defendant Appel in Washington’s ongoing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Washington seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.46

                              BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
                               100 Federal Street
                           Boston, Massachusetts 02110

                              As of: June 27, 2006

Dover Saddlery, Inc.
525 Great Road
Littleton, MA 01460
Attention:  Steven L. Day, President

      Re;   Dover Saddlery, Inc. Financing Arrangements

Dear Steve:

      We refer to the Amended and Restated Loan Agreement dated as of December
11, 2003 (as amended, the "Loan Agreement") between Dover Saddlery, Inc. and
Bank of America, N.A. (successor by merger to Fleet National Bank). Capitalized
terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms
in the Loan Agreement.

      You have requested that the Bank waive the provisions of Section 5.7(vii)
of the Loan Agreement for the limited purpose of allowing the Borrower to
acquire, through Dover Saddlery Retail, Inc., a newly-formed wholly-owned
subsidiary, for a purchase price not in excess of $1,650,000, all of the capital
stock of Dominion Saddlery, Inc., such transaction to be upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the letter (and accompanying attachments) from Michael
Bruns to the Bank, dated June 9, 2006, and attached hereto a Annex A (the
"Purchase Notice").

      The undersigned hereby waives the provisions of Section 5.7(vii) of the
Loan Agreement for the limited purpose of allowing the Borrower to consummate
the above-described transaction upon the terms and conditions contained in the
Purchase Notice, it being expressly agreed that no other waiver, modification or
consent is hereby granted. It is further acknowledged and agreed that these
waivers will remain effective so long as (i) there are no material variations
from the terms and conditions contained in the Purchase Notice, (ii) the
Subordinated Lender provides its consent to such transaction on terms
satisfactory to the Bank, (iii) such transaction is consummated on or before
July 31, 2006, (iv) the Borrower promptly requires each of Dover Saddlery
Retail, Inc. and Dominion Saddlery, Inc. to become a party to the Loan Documents
as contemplated by Section 5.15 of the Loan Agreement, and (v) such transaction
meets all of the criteria of a Permitted Acquisition, except that the total
consideration therefore may exceed $500,000 (but not be more than $1,650,000).

<PAGE>

      The Borrower hereby confirms, by its acceptance hereof, that the Loan
Agreement remains in full force and effect.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
                                 (successor by merger to
                                 Fleet National Bank)


                                 By: /s/ John F. Lynch
                                     ----------------------------
                                     Title:  S.V.P.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-189]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION BOARD MEETING


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: January 22, 2007, 9:15 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

Place: 901 N. Stuart Street, Tenth Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Status: Open session.

Matters to be Considered: 
    <bullet> Approval of the Minutes of the May 22, 2006, Meeting of 
the Board of Directors.
    <bullet> President's Report.
    <bullet> Program Update.
    <bullet> Operations Update.
    <bullet> External Affairs.
    <bullet> Congressional Affairs.
    <bullet> Board site visit to IAF grantees.

Portions to be Open to the Public:
    <bullet> All.

Portions to be Closed to the Public:
    <bullet> None.

Contact Person For More Information:
    <bullet> Jennifer R. Hodges, General Counsel--(703) 306-4320.

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
Jennifer R. Hodges,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 07-189 Filed 1-12-07; 3 pm]
BILLING CODE 7025-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07090]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY:  Election Assistance Commission.

DATE & TIME:  Tuesday, March 31, 2015 AT 10:00 a.m.

PLACE:  1335 East-West Highway (First Floor Conference Room), Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.

STATUS:  This Meeting Will Be Open To The Public

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION: 
 Draft Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 1.1)
 Draft Certification Program Procedural Manual, Version 2.0
 Draft Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual, Version 2.0
 Requests for HAVA Funding Advisory Opinions

Agenda

    The Commission will receive presentations on the DRAFT Voluntary 
Voting System Guidelines (VVSG 1.1) and consider the proposed VVSG 1.1 
for adoption. The Commission will receive presentations on the DRAFT 
Certification Program Procedural Manual, Version 2.0, and consider the 
proposed final document for approval. The Commission will receive 
presentations on the DRAFT Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual, 
Version 2.0, and consider the proposed final document for approval. The 
Commission will consider approval of advisory opinion requests related 
to expenditure of HAVA funds from the state and local election offices 
in the States of Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Montana, Washington State 
and California. The Commission will consider other administrative 
matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (301) 
563-3961.

    Submitted: March 24, 2015.
Bryan Whitener,
Director of Communications & Clearinghouse.
[FR Doc. 2015-07090 Filed 3-24-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
§ 46.10-15 Survey for the establishment and renewal of subdivision load line marks. ( a ) Every passenger vessel to be marked with and certificated for subdivision load lines must comply with the requirements as set forth in subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of this chapter for ocean, coastwise, and Great Lakes service as applicable to the particular vessel and the service in which she is to be employed.
( b ) Every passenger vessel marked with a subdivision load line shall be subjected to the surveys specified in this paragraph. The details of the surveys or inspections indicated in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section shall be as set forth in the applicable sections of part 71 of subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of this chapter. ( 1 ) A survey before the vessel is put in service.
( 2 ) A periodical survey once every 12 months.
( 3 ) Additional surveys as occasion arises.
( 4 ) Surveys required by part 42, part 44, or part 45 of this subchapter.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16769, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10077, July 12, 1968]