alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Emile Brillant EKAMBY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2377.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 20, 2005.

Decided Aug. 11, 2005.

Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Karen A. Smith, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM.

Emile Brillant Ekamby, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Ekamby challenges the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Ekamby fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Ekamby’s request for *149withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(8).” *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Ekamby fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.

We also find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s finding that Ekamby fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We find that Ekamby failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.

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*
No. 63885.

protest 59/19135 (New York).

#### Schildkraut Bros. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this-court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: Adam Troutwine <ATroutwine@Polsinelli.com>

Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 1:49 PM

To: Peterson, Barbara

Subject: Centel/Norfolk FMGP Site

Hello Barbara,

I’m writing to touch base on the Centel/Norfolk FMGP site in Norfolk, NE. 

We have recently engaged in discussions with the Nebraska Dept of Environmental Quality re: the possibility of 

enrolling the Norfolk site in the voluntary cleanup program. Attached is an email from Mike Felix of NDEQ 

indicating an Application and MOA can be submitted to enter the VCP. As we consider our options for moving 

forward, some questions have arisen regarding the effect of enrollment in the VCP on the proposed NPL listing. 

Do you have time to discuss this matter this week?

I am free the remainder of the day today, Thursday until 1pm and all day Friday.

Please let me know if any of those times work for your schedule.

Thank you,

Adam

This electronic mail message contains CONFIDENTIAL information which is (a) ATTORNEY - CLIENT 

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, WORK PRODUCT, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE 

PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named 

herein. If you are not an Addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an Addressee, you are hereby 

notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail 

message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from 

your computer system. 

Adam Troutwine

Shareholder

atroutwine@polsinelli.com

816.572.4759

900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900

Kansas City, MO 64112

polsinelli.com

Benchmark's Missouri Litigation Firm of the Year

Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Page 1 of 1

mhtml:file://C:\Users\TJENG\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fi... 11/24/2015
S•IHI•••·Howellt 

211- 'f'h Avenue North 

Lewldown, Montana le417 

Date: April to, 2013 

To: Susan L Kurland 

Asst Secretary 

Aviation and International Affairs 

From: Sandra Howells 

RE: Doct?et DOT -OST ·1997-2605 

Dear Ms. Kurland, 

I am writing with great concern about the proposed termination of Essential Air Service 

funding for the Lewistown area. 

The population in Lewistown is made up of about 25% retirees. My husband and I are 

included in that percentage. Lewistown is a small town right in the middle of Montana 

and not connected to any Interstate highway. 

Our last remaining source of public transportation is our air service. The retirees here 

depend on this transportation mode. It is a comfort to ~now we have the airline here, 

especially with the winter driving conditions in Montana. It is not· as easy for senior 

citizens to drive great highway distances during the winter and we would have to do 

that to get to larger travel hubs. 

The airline provides the option to travel to Billings or Denver for medical appointments 

and to connect with other airlines for further travel destinations. Cancer patients have 

flown out of Lewistown for treatment in Denver. 

Please consider a reprieve to this Order to Show Cause and give Lewistown a chance to 

increase passenger number count. 

Than~ you.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DENNIS D. CORBRAY,

Petitioner,

v.

SANDRA CARTER,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5043 RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus, respondent’s answer, the

Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom, objections to the Report and

Recommendation, and the remaining record. Petitioner’s objections are basically a rehash of his

arguments made to the Magistrate Judge. He wants the court to accept his view of the proceedings

below rather than accepting the rules of federal habeas corpus proceedings. This court found no

error in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 7) is DENIED; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, counsel for

respondent and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05043-RJB Document 24 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 1
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MIGUEL DIAZ-JIMENEZ,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5172M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 September 28, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05723-FDB Document 7 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 75 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 18, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Members and Delegates be, and are 
hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Meek of Florida (to rank immediately after 
Mr. Cummings).
    Committee on Financial Services: Mr. Boren.
    Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Berman, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott 
of Virginia, Mr. Watt, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, 
Ms. Waters, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
California, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Sherman, Mr. 
Weiner, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Mr. Ellison.
    Committee on Natural Resources: Mr. Kildee, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. 
Abercrombie, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Pallone, Mrs. Christensen, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. 
Holt, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Costa, Mr. Boren, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. George 
Miller of California, Mr. Markey, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode 
Island, Mr. Kind, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Baca, Ms. 
Solis, Ms. Herseth, and Mr. Shuler.
    Committee on Science and Technology: Mr. Costello, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson 
of Texas, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Wu, Mr. Baird, Mr. Miller of 
North Carolina, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Lampson, Ms. Giffords, Mr. McNerney, Mr. 
Rothman, Mr. Honda, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Ross, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. 
Melancon, Mr. Hill, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Ms. Berkley (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Doyle), and Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Charles Heinz, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 468]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Blinder, J.), entered April 19, 1994.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Judge Blinder at the Court of Claims in his memorandum decisions dated September 11, 1990, and March 25, 1994. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
From: Mary.wolf@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:24:22 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,

Mary Wolf

Fort Worth, TX 76135
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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOSEPH HERNDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNP G. DURANO, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5154RJB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To file a

complaint and initiate legal proceedings plaintiff must pay a filing fee of $250.00 or file a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On March 21, 2006, the Clerk received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Dkt. #1). On March 29, 2006, the Clerk sent plaintiff a letter informing him his application

contained several deficiencies, which he must cure by no later than April 28, 2006, or this action could be

subject to dismissal. (Dkt. #2). On April 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to the Clerk’s letter, which

cured some of those deficiencies. (Dkt. #3). However, one deficiency remains. 

Case 3:06-cv-05154-RJB Document 5 Filed 05/10/06 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

Page - 2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2):

A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or

proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor . . . shall submit a certified

copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for

the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal,

obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was

confined.

Plaintiff thus was required to submit a statement showing the balance and activity of his account for the

six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. Plaintiff so far has submitted a copy of

his prison trust account statement showing the balance and activity in his account for the months of

November 2005, through February 2006, a period of only four months. 

Accordingly, the Court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure the above remaining deficiency by filing no later than June 10,

2006, a copy of his prison trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2)

showing the balance and activity of his account(s) for the six-month period immediately

preceding the filing of his complaint. 

Failure to cure this deficiency by the above date shall be deemed a failure to properly

prosecute this matter and the Court will recommend dismissal of this matter.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 

DATED this 10th day of May, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05154-RJB Document 5 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,667.

#### STURGES v. MAXWELL.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Startech Environmental Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Peter J. Scanlon, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.




/s/ Peter J. Scanlon
--------------------
Peter J. Scanlon
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, and Principal Financial Officer
June 2, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P. (the  "Partnership") for the period ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  and  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify 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
     Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

September 21, 2009
Before the Third Division,

January 13, 1955

No. 58695.

petition 7126-R (Pittsburgh).

#### Burt Gift Shop *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This is a petition for remission of additional duties filed under authority of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Said additional duties were *263assessed for the reason that the final appraised value exceeded the value declared on entry. Petitioner is the owner of a gift shop and, on a visit to Paris for the purpose of obtaining merchandise for sale, obtained from a retail shop certain powder-puif holders, which he considered desirable items for his gift-shop trade. Payment was made by means of travelers’ checks, which petitioner understood entitled the buyer to a discount of around 12 percent. The only difference in the values appears to be due to this discount. The particular merchandise involved is not sold by anyone, except the retail establishment from which petitioner purchased. Prom his experience, petitioner testified that the price which he paid was constant.

Petitioner made entry at the price paid for the goods, which he understood was the value thereof. When visited by customs agents, he explained the entire transaction to them and withheld no information. He testified that, in making entry as he did, he had no intention to mislead or deceive the appraiser or the customs officials or defraud the revenue of the United States.

On cross-examination, petitioner explained that he confused price with customs value, in making entry as he did. Government counsel then stated to the court that this petition had been investigated by a customs agent, who concluded his report thereon as follows:

Prom the above it would appear that there was no intent on the part of the importer to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or deceive the Appraiser of Merchandise as to the value of the merchandise entered.

It is clear that petitioner herein made a full and complete disclosure of the facts to the Government officials and that the entry at a value lower than the final appraised value was due to a mistake; that petitioner had no intention of deceiving the Government or its officials or of defrauding the revenue of the United States. The petition is, therefore, granted.
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 29 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 29 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 29 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 3 of 3
Before the First Division,

October 20, 1966

No. P66/278. —

No. P66/279. —

#### United Basket Co. *v.*United States, protest 62/17192 (New York). United Basket Co. *v.*United States, protests 63/14746, etc. (New York).

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rush bags or baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Carson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2558), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.