alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bhupinder Shergill SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72191.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Pardeep Singh Grewal, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sharia Cerra, Esq., USLA-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Norah Aseoli Schwarz, Esq., Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*608Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bhupinder Shergill Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, *Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ identified significant and substantial inconsistencies within Singh’s testimony, and between his testimony and written declaration, regarding the treatment Singh received in India, the reasons he was mistreated, and his identity. *See Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir.1999). The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh’s testimony was credible. *See id.*Accordingly, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. *See Malhi,*336 F.3d at 993.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh is not entitled to relief under the CAT because he did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to India. *See id.*

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------

                      CEO AND CFO 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  ITEC  Attractions,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Paul M.  Bluto,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Financial  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  result  of
              operations of the Company.



/s/  Paul M. Bluto
------------------
Paul M. Bluto
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

November 21, 2005
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JAM ES STANLEY HATLEY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30164

D.C . No. 6:13-c r-00007-SEH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sam E. Ha ddon, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Jam e s Sta n le y Hatle y a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his m otion for a

se nte nc e re duc tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the de nia l of a se c tion 3582(c )(2) 

# FIL ED FEB 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). Hat le y ’ s re q ue st for ora l argum e nt is de nie d .m otion for a buse of disc re t ion, se e Unite d State s v . Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th C ir. 2013), a

n d we a ffirm . Hatle y c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion by

de c lining to re duc e his se nte nc e ba se d on the substa ntia l a ssista

nc e he pre viously

provide d a

nd his post-se nte nc ing re ha

bilita tive e fforts. W e disa gre e . The c ourt unde rstood tha t the G uide line s ra

n ge ha d be e n lowe re d, but c o nc l ude d tha t the origina l 60-m onth se nte nc e , whic h wa s be low e v e n the re c a lc u late d range , wa s wa

rrante d in light of the 1 8 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) fa c tors. Se e id. at 1158-60. C ontra ry to Ha tle y ’ s sugge s tion, theGuide line s did not re quire the c ourt to gra n t a re duc tion c om pa ra ble to the re duc tion tha

t it originally

grante d. Se e U.S.S.G. § 1B 1 .10(b)(2)(B ) & c m

t . n.3. AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 3 0 1 6 4 2
Before the Second Division,

April 27, 1967

No. P67/128.

No. P67/129.

#### M. D. Burns & Co. and Arthur *J.*Fritz *&*Co. *v.*United States,

protests 62/18362, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Tokmiss Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/11244, etc. (Los Angeles).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of hanging paper similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Victor England Agencies, Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 2394), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
The 2014 make-the-most-of-yourmortgage checklist

Mortgage checklist

It’s a new year and new rules are taking effect that make 

this a good time to make sure your mortgage is on the 

right track. New CFPB rules require that your mortgage 

servicer send you more information and fix mistakes 

quickly. And if your interest rate is going to change this 

year, you’ll get a heads up to give you more time to shop 

for a better deal. All this means 2014 should be a year 

with fewer runarounds and surprises. 

By February you should be getting a new monthly 

mortgage statement showing how your mortgage 

servicer credited your monthly payments along with any 

extra payment. Your statement also puts the important 

information you need in one place: Your interest rate, 

the balance on your loan, and how your payments are 

applied. If you use a coupon book, your mortgage 

servicer will have to send you a coupon book that 

complies with our new rules. 

Here’s how you can put the new 

mortgage rules to work for you

Check for delays. 

With very few exceptions, your servicer must credit your 

mortgage payment as of the day they receive it. Check 

your statement to see if your payments were credited 

on time. If not, call or write your servicer and tell them 

to correct the problem. 

Fix mistakes. 

The new CFPB mortgage rules require servicers to 

investigate and fix in a timely manner mistakes that you 

report. If your servicer won’t help you when you call, 

submit a written error notification for more protection. 

Shop around. 

Your monthly mortgage statement will show you your 

interest rate and principal balance. Compare your rate 

to current interest rates. You can find local rates online 

or in the business section of your newspaper. If your 

interest rate is higher than current rates, you might 

look into refinancing. 

Prepare for your rate reset. 

If you have an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM), your 

mortgage servicer is required to send you an estimate 

of your new payment seven or eight months before your 

interest rate resets for the first time. If you have an ARM 

that has already reset once, you will be notified two to 

three months in advance of the next reset. This advance 

notice is designed to give you time to budget for your 

new payment or shop for a different mortgage. 

Get help and take control. 

Consumers who are having trouble paying their 

mortgages will get a warning that they’re late on their 

payment on their new monthly statement. New CFPB 

rules also generally require your mortgage servicer to 

reach out to you. But you don’t have to wait until you fall 

behind to act. Take control. If you submit a complete 

application for help soon enough—often called a 

loss mitigation application—new CFPB rules require 

your servicer to evaluate you for options that may be 

available to you to avoid foreclosure.

Visit us online at consumerfinance.gov
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20787]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Thyroid Cancer and other 
Malignancies in Belarus, November 9, 2023, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., 
National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 
7W608, Rockville, Maryland 20850 which was published in the Federal 
Register on August 30, 2023, FR Doc. 2023-18703, 88 FR 59930.
    This notice is being amended to change the meeting title from 
National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel Thyroid Cancer and 
other Malignancies in Belarus to National Cancer Institute Special 
Emphasis Panel Cancer and Other Health Effects Following Chernobyl 
Accident. The meeting location, date and time will stay the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20787 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Jimmy D. JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve LOFTIS; Mike Gardner; Jeffrey Arledge; Derrick Pendergrass; John Doe, 1-12 Officers; Greenville County Sheriffs Office, Sued in their individual and official capacities; South Carolina Highway Patrol Headquarters District Three, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-6424.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 18, 2005.

Jimmy D. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney & Turner, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

*179Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy D. Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because Jones’ excessive force claims lack merit under the Eighth, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. *See Jones v. Loftisd,*No. CA-03-3098-25BD, 2005 WL 1992519 (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2005). We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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,

*AFFIRMED*
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR RETURN TO STATE CUSTODY 

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

Hon. Robert S. Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS A. CAMERON, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR 05 – 382 RSL 

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR RETURN TO STATE CUSTODY 

 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Thomas A. Cameron’s “Motion for 

Return to State Custody” (Dkt. # 33). Pursuant to notification by defense counsel, this motion is 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

 DATED July 27th, 2006. 

 Robert S. Lasnik 

 United States District Judge

A

Case 2:05-cr-00382-RSL Document 36 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

February 7, 2011

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐3537

MAURICE COLEMAN,

Petitioner‐Appellant,

v.

MARCUS HARDY,

Respondent‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 1:99‐CV‐02635

Amy J. St. Eve,

Judge.

O R D E R

On consideration of the petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc filed by

Respondent‐Appellee on December 3, 2010, the opinion issued in the above‐titled case on

November 19, 2010 is hereby AMENDED as follows:  

On page 11 of the slip opinion, a footnote is inserted immediately following the

sentence, “In such a case an evidentiary hearing is warranted only if ‘the facts underlying the

claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the

underlying offense.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(B).”  The footnote reads:

We join the Third and Eleventh Circuits in finding that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
No. 08‐3537 Page 2

2254(e)(2)(A) do not have to be met in order for a court to hold an evidentiary hearing

on whetherthe petitioner has met the actual innocence threshold necessary to consider

the merits of his procedurally defaulted claim.  See Cristin v. Brennan, 281 F.3d 404, 418‐

19 (3d Cir. 2002) (finding no indications that “Congress intended § 2254 (e)(2)ʹs

restrictions on evidentiary hearings to apply, in addition to hearings on the merits, to

hearings on excuses to procedural default.”);  Sibley v. Culliver, 377 F.3d 1196, 1207 n.9

(11th Cir. 2004) (“We do not believe this provision governs the availability of

evidentiary hearings when petitioners seek to introduce evidence concerning actual

innocence. By its own terms, § 2254(e) applies only where a petitioner ‘has failed to

develop the factual basis of a claim in State court.’ The term ‘claim’ appears to refer to

the substantive claim for relief upon which the petition for habeas corpus is based.”).

Cf. Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 560 (8th Cir. 2000) (rejecting argument that district

court abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on claim of actual

innocence where petitioner made no attempt to satisfy § 2254(e)(2)).

All members of the original panel have otherwise voted to deny the petition for

rehearing.  No judge in regular active service requested a vote on the petition for rehearing

en banc. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.
From: sasquatch61385@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:21:50 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,

Josh McAdams

Hutto, TX 78634
August 29, 1956

No. 60211.

protest 251119-K.

#### Richter Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

G. MICHAEL STRAUSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONNA HAMILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5772FDB/KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 11, 2006, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to open discovery or stay defendant’s

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 18). The court’s order was based on plaintiff’s inability to

produce evidence of a violation of a constitutional violation and factual dispute precluding summary

judgment. 

After carefully reviewing the motion for reconsideration and the record, the court ORDERS

as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 23) is DENIED. Motions for

 reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied in the “absence of a showing of manifest

error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been

brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Here,

Case 3:05-cv-05772-FDB Document 24 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 2
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 - 2

plaintiff has identified no error in the court’s order, nor presented any new facts or legal authority

that suggest reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable 

Franklin D. Burgess.

DATED this 6th day of June, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05772-FDB Document 24 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 2
From: Blueflower378@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:28:35 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,

Patricia Dale

Babylon, NY 11702
EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-K of Strike Axe, Inc. for the period ending March 31, 2009, I, Daniel K. Leonard, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Strike Axe, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:  1.Such annual report of Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in such annual report of Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2009, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Strike Axe, Inc.  Date:  November 2, 2010Strike Axe, Inc.By: /s/   Daniel K. LeonardDaniel K. Leonard
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Principal Accounting Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
EX-10.8.a



 Exhibit 10.8(a) 

June 1, 2017 
 Aspect
Capital Ltd. 
 10 Portman Square 

London W1H 6AZ, 
 U.K. 

Attention: Mr. Anthony Todd, CEO 
  

	 	Re:	 Management Agreement Renewals 



Dear Mr. Todd: 
 We are
writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2018 and all other
provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	 Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P 



	 	•	 	 Global Futures Fund Ltd 



	 	•	 	 Managed Futures Custom Solutions Fund LP 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of
Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522 Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212-296-6808. 

Very truly yours, 
  

			
	 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC

	
	 By: /s/ Patrick T. Egan

	 Patrick T. Egan

	 President and Director

	
	ASPECT CAPITAL LTD.
		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Jonathan
Greenwood                                   
	
	 Print Name: Jonathan
Greenwood                          


 PE/tr