alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1526

ROMANO LATAGAN OMALIN, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-349-382) Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romano Latagan Omalin, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Victor Matthew Lawrence, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Romano Latagan Omalin, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to § 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(i) (West 1999 & Supp. 2004), and the immigration judge’s denial of his application for adjustment of status. The Attorney General previously filed a motion to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Because we agreed that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s denial of Omalin’s application for a § 212(i) waiver, we granted the motion to dismiss to the extent that Omalin’s petition challenged this denial. We now address the remaining issues raised in Omalin’s petition. Omalin first contends that the Board’s use of the summary affirmance procedure as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004) violated his rights under the Due Process Clause. This argument, however, has been squarely rejected by our decision in Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004). In Blanco de Belbruno , we held that “the [Board]’s streamlining regulations do not violate an alien’s rights to due process of law under the Fifth- 3 - Amendment.” Id.at 283. Accordingly, Omalin is not entitled to relief on this claim. Omalin also argues that the immigration judge’s comments regarding the presence of his young child at his immigration hearing evidenced such a bias on the part of the immigration judge as to violate his right to due process of law. Because the remarks of the immigration judge fall well short of displaying a “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible,” Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), we find that Omalin has failed to show judicial bias and therefore cannot establish a violation of his due process rights. We therefore deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Sandra Milena GARZON, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 04-16336

Non-Argument Calendar.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2005.

*893Troy Nader Moslemi, Law Office of Troy N. Moslemi, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.

Sally M. Richardson, Anne R. Schultz, Laura Thomas Rivero, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, David V. Bernal, Andrew C. MacLaehlan, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sandra Milena Garzón, a citizen of Colombia, petitions through counsel for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reconsider its earlier decision. In its previous order, the BIA had affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. *Assa’ad v. U.S. Attorney Gen.,*332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir.2003); *see also 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is within the discretion of the [BIA].... ”). A motion to reconsider must set forth either an error of law or an error of fact in the prior BIA decision, and must be supported by pertinent authority. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Garzon’s motion to reconsider failed to set forth any error in the BIA’s previous order. Instead, it simply restated her argument that her mother had been granted asylum based on the same facts she alleged, an argument that both the BIA and the IJ had previously considered and rejected. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Garzon’s motion to reconsider.

In her brief, Garzón also challenges the BIA’s first order, in which it affirmed the denial of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT.

We do not consider this challenge because it is not properly before us. Garzón did not file a timely petition for review of the BIA’s final order of removal or its rejection of her additional evidence. A petition for review must be filed no later than thirty days after the date of the final *894order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Here, the BIA’s first order was entered on August 31, 2004, and Garzon’s petition for review was not filed until December 6, 2004, more than three months later. It makes no difference that Garzón filed a motion for reconsideration. That does not toll the time for seeking judicial review of the final order of removal. *Ahmed v. Ashcroft,*388 F.3d 247, 248 (7th Cir.2004); *see also Stone v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).

PETITION DENIED.
From: xin-me@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:30:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dustin May

Covington, LA 70433
From: makytaja@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Emma Henry

Somerset, KY 42503
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 The Players Network (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 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: 

 

| 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. |

 

| Dated: August 22, 2005                                                              | /s/ Mark Bradley                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  
Mark Bradley

 
Chief Executive Officer

 
Chief Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Global Ship Lease, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F), I Susan J. Cook, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 20-F fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 18, 2010



|    |  |                                             
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Susan J. Cook                           
|    |  | Susan J. Cook                               
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|    |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,240,472
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         243,609
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                53,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,384,174
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     93,250,839
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,022,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             120,691,353
<DEPOSITS>                                 105,783,146
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,850,953
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            820,078
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,117
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       297,248
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,925,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             120,691,353
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,774,592
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              515,040
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                69,913
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,359,545
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,278,213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,350,483
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,009,062
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   78,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,814,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                721,137
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     721,137
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   546,422
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.76
<LOANS-NON>                                    398,576
<LOANS-PAST>                                   230,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               895,952
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   21,980
<RECOVERIES>                                    70,440
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,022,412
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           972,014
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         50,398



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01

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 Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended July 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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 the operations of the company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Mark S. Thompson   
|Mark S. Thompson       
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 9, 2007
(October 16, 1995)

#### Bay Parkway Super Clean Car Wash, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Accurate Auto Repair, Inc., et al., Respondents.

*550[633 NYS2d 962]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to permanently enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ business, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated April 29, 1994, as denied the branch of their motion which was to vacate that portion of an order of the same court, dated March 24, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion to hold the plaintiff Anthony Boumoussa in civil contempt for failure to comply with a prior order of the same court, dated October 20, 1993.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Bay Parkway Super Clean Car Wash, Inc., is dismissed, as that plaintiff is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from *(see,*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Anthony Boumoussa, on the law, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to vacate that portion of the order dated March 24, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion to hold the plaintiff Anthony Boumoussa in civil contempt is granted, the defendants’ motion to hold the plaintiff Anthony Boumoussa in civil contempt is denied, and that portion of the order dated March 24, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion to hold the plaintiff Anthony Boumoussa in civil contempt is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff Anthony Boumoussa is awarded one bill of costs.

To sustain a finding of civil contempt based upon a violation of a court order, it must appear with reasonable certainty that the party charged has violated a clear and unequivocal mandate and that the conduct impaired or prejudiced the rights of a party to the litigation *(see, Matter of McCormick v Axelrod,*59 NY2d 574, 583, *amended on other grounds*60 NY2d 652; *JC Mfg. Corp. v NPI Elec.,*179 AD2d 721, 722; *City of Poughkeepsie v Hetey,*121 AD2d 496, 497). The defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff Anthony Boumoussa violated a prior court order or that their rights were in any manner impaired or prejudiced. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in refusing to vacate the finding of contempt. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 67074.

protests 59/2760(A), etc. (Los Angeles).

#### James G. Wiley and Slater Brokerage et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Olivee, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K


CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported): March 8, 2019





CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION


(EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)


Delaware (STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION)001-11241 (COMMISSION FILE NUMBER)37-1105865 (IRS EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER)


2120 West End Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee    37203-0001 (ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)    (ZIP CODE)


Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (615) 341-1000





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).


Emerging growth company o





If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o











---




I tem 8.01 Other Events .


An updated Exhibit 5.2 is filed herewith in connection with the Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation’s (the “Company’s”) program for the issuance from time to time of the Company’s PowerNotes ® (the “PowerNotes”) pursuant to the previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-217029) (the “Registration Statement”) and the related Prospectus dated March 30, 2017 and Prospectus Supplement dated March 30, 2017.





Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits .





(d) Exhibits . The following Exhibits are filed as part of this Report and as Exhibits to the Registration Statement:





ExhibitNumberDescription5.2Opinion of Erika Ruiz, as to the legality of the PowerNotes.23.2Consent of Erika Ruiz (included as part of Exhibit 5.2).








2


---







SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





Caterpillar Financial Services CorporationBy:/s/ Michael G. SposatoName: Michael G. Sposato Title:   Secretary





Date: March 8, 2019











3