alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Patra Wuraola AKINWANDE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-1295.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

*177Alexander M. Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Larry P. Cote, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Patra Wuraola AMnwande, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reconsider. We deny the petition for review.

Akinwande devotes her entire brief to the Board’s October 28, 2003 order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying relief. Because Akinwande did not file a timely petition for review from that order, this court is without jurisdiction to conduct a review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone *v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).

Because Akinwande may not file a motion to reconsider an order denying a motion to reconsider, the Board did not abuse its discretion denying the motion. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (2005).

Accordingly, we 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*
From: manicboy@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:17:05 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,

Darcie Cobos

Simi Valley, CA 93065
```

[114th Congress Public Law 44]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 472]]

Public Law 114-44
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of the 
antitrust laws to the award of need-based educational aid. <<NOTE: Aug. 
                         6, 2015 -  [S. 1482]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Need-Based 
Educational Aid Act of 2015. 15 USC 1 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 
2015''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ANTRITRUST 
                    LAWS TO THE AWARD OF NEED-BASED EDUCATIONAL 
                    AID.

    Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (15 
U.S.C. 1 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or'' after the 
                semicolon;
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; or'' and 
                inserting a period at the end; and
                    (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``2015'' and inserting 
        ``2022''.

    Approved August 6, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1482:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            July 14, considered and passed Senate.
            July 27, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
From: vivianmiller@cableone.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:21:50 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,

Vivian Miller

Prescott, AZ 86301
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 395 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 11, 2007.
Whereas, for over 100 years, the Olympic movement has built a more peaceful and 
        better world by educating young people through athletics, by bringing 
        together athletes from many countries in friendly competition, and by 
        forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity, 
        sportsmanship, and fair play;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee is dedicated to coordinating and 
        developing athletic activity in the United States to foster productive 
        working relationships among sports-related organizations;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee promotes and supports athletic 
        activities involving the United States and foreign nations;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee promotes and encourages physical 
        fitness and public participation in athletic activities;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee assists organizations and persons 
        concerned with sports in the development of athletic programs for able-
        bodied and disabled athletes regardless of age, race, or gender;
Whereas the United States Olympic Committee protects the opportunity of each 
        athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator, and official to 
        participate in athletic competition;
Whereas the United States Olympic Training Centers in Colorado, California, New 
        York, Michigan, and Alabama are dedicated to the development of Olympic 
        athletes;
Whereas athletes representing the United States at the Olympic games have 
        achieved great success personally and for the Nation;
Whereas thousands of men and women of the United States are focusing their 
        energy and skill on becoming part of the United States Olympic team and 
        aspire to compete in the 2008 Olympic games;
Whereas the Nation takes great pride in the qualities of commitment to 
        excellence, grace under pressure, and good will toward other competitors 
        exhibited by the athletes of the United States Olympic team; and
Whereas June 23, 2007 is the anniversary of the founding of the modern Olympic 
        movement, representing the date on which the Congress of Paris approved 
        the proposal of Pierre de Coubertin to found the modern Olympic games: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the ideals and values of the Olympic movement;
            (2) calls upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 
        anniversary of the founding of the modern Olympic movement; and
            (3) calls upon the people of the United States to observe such 
        anniversary with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: dean@gfbbbenefits.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:11:33 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,

Dean Forman

Roseville, CA 95678
From: emms07@ec.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:33:42 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,

Eunice Small

Wilmington, NC 28411
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEITH A ANDERSON,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5782

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office alleging

that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, LAWRENCE LINCOLN;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, RUSSELL LEONARD;

The Court having advised the defendant of the allegations in the Petition(s) filed by the U.S. Probation

Office; the defendant having been advised of the maximum potential sanction if the allegation(s) is/are

substantiated; the defendant having acknowledged an understanding of his rights and having

acknowledged that he violated the conditions of his probation as alleged: (1) use of amphetamines on

or about February 14, 2007; and (2) failing to appear for urinalysis testing on or about July 5, 2006;

September 5,19, 2006; October 10, 2006; and November 12,13, 2006. 

The matter is scheduled for disposition on the probation violations before the Honorable J KELLEY

ARNOLD.

Date: TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2007

Time: 3:00 P.M.

( x ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing; subject to full compliance with the

terms and conditions of probation.

( ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. .

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant,

the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services Office.

April 5, 2007.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold________________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05782-JKA Document 19 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 1
From: artyapoah100@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:58:48 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,

Arthur Williams

Eugene, OR 97401
No. 64535.

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/26758, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen C. Yevich, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Brinks Home Security Holdings, Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 6, 2010



/s/ Stephen C. YevichStephen C. YevichExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




39
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUADALUPE SONIA RODRIGUEZ

DOMINGUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73586

Agency No. A095-299-317

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 8, 2016** 

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges and EATON,*** Senior

International Trade Judge.

 

FILED

JAN 09 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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 Richard K. Eaton, Judge for the U.S. Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.
Guadalupe Sonia Rodriguez Dominguez (“Rodriguez”), a native and citizen

of Mexico, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision denying her application for

asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny

Rodriguez’s petition for review.

Rodriguez first entered the United States in 1989 as a non-immigrant visa

visitor with authorization to remain in the United States for a temporary period not

to exceed March 11, 1992. She filed the asylum application at issue here in 2007. 

An alien must file an asylum application within one year of her arrival into the

United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). A late-filed application may be excused

if the alien demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances” that are “directly related to

the failure to meet the 1-year deadline . . . as long as the alien filed the application

within a reasonable period given those circumstances.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). 

Although Rodriguez’s expert testified that Rodriguez “was undergoing a low-grade

depression” related to Rodriguez’s coping with her homosexual orientation, this

was not a serious mental disability that would prevent her from filing for asylum

within one year of her arrival in the United States. Rodriguez’s expert testified that

he “could not pinpoint when the depression started,” but suggested that it began as

early as Rodriguez’s childhood, and Rodriguez testified that she graduated from

college in 1983 with honors, and in 1989 she obtained a visa to work in the United

2
States. Since no “extraordinary circumstances” existed to excuse Rodriguez’s

untimely asylum application, she is statutorily barred from asylum eligibility by 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B).1

DENIED.

1

 The BIA also found that Rodriguez “failed to prove that it was more likely

than not she would be tortured by or ‘at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in official capacity’ upon

removal to Mexico.” In her opening brief, Rodriguez does not specifically

challenge the BIA’s denial of her CAT claim. Thus, the issue is waived. See

Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In his

opening brief, Castro did not challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim and

therefore waived it.”).

3
No. 63317.

protests 317552-K, etc. (New York).

#### Frank H. Lee Co. and R. F. Downing & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of straw hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Pollak Industrial Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 251, C.D. 1991), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.