alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60353

Summary Calendar

 

ROZY RAJWANY

Petitioner

v.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Respondent

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

A70-812-229

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

February 27, 2003

Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rozy Rajwany petitions this court for review of the order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from

the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of

deportation.

Upon review of Rajwany’s claims, we find substantial evidence

to support the BIA’s conclusion that Rajwany failed to establish a

nexus between the specific events of alleged persecution she

testified to and her status as a Bihari. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
No. 02-60353

-2-

2 A “refugee” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) is a person

who is outside of her country and is unable or unwilling to

return “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 

899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The [BIA]’s factual conclusions are

reviewed for substantial evidence.”); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185,

188 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[A]bsent dispositive error of law, we must

affirm the [BIA]’s determination that [the petitioner] was

ineligible for asylum or withholding of deportation if we find that

its decision was supported by substantial evidence in the

record.”); Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.

1991) (“As long as the [BIA]’s conclusion is substantially

reasonable, we cannot reverse the finding simply because we

disagree with the [BIA]’s evaluation of the facts.”).

The BIA’s dismissal of Rajwany’s appeal based on its

determination that Rajwany did not establish either past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in

Bangladesh on account of a ground enumerated under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A) is AFFIRMED.2 Because Rajwany does not meet the

standard for asylum, she also does not meet the standard for

withholding of deportation. Efe, 293 F.3d at 906. Accordingly, to

the extent her application is treated as a request for withholding

of deportation, such request (and all other requests not herein

granted) is 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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

AL NERIO et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5340RJB

ORDER CALLING FOR A

RESPONSE AND STAYING THE

CASE 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and

MJR 4. Before the court is plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. # 73). Defendants

have filed a response in which they cite to the case management order and indicating no response will be

filed unless one is called for (Dkt. # 74). While the issue in this case is unrelated to the relief currently

sought, plaintiff’s access to courts claim requires a response.

Defendants response to the motion for temporary restraining order will be due on or before March

30, 2007. If plaintiff wishes to reply his reply will be due April 6, 2007. The court will consider the

motion on the April 13, 2007, calendar. 

The court notes that on February 22, 2007, plaintiffs filed five separate additional motions (Dkt. #

91, 92, 93, 96, and 97). The court does not expect any response to these motions at this time. If a

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 112 Filed 03/13/07 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

response is required, the court will enter an order so directing. This action is STAYED. Other than the

response and reply to the motion for temporary restraining order no other pleadings are to be filed at this

time. The court will consider the five motions filed February 22, 2007 after considering the motion for a

temporary restraining order.

The clerk’s office is directed to re-note the motion for a temporary restraining order, (Dkt. #

73), for April 13, 2007 and to re-note the five motions filed February 22, 2007, (Dkt. # 91, 92, 93, 96,

and 97) for April 20, 2007. The clerk’s office is also directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and

counsel for defendants. 

DATED this 13 day of March, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 112 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 63908.

protest 257584-K (Ogdensburg).

#### F. W. Myers & Co. *v.*United States,

*373Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the ¡merchandise consists of packing-bos shooks similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*(45 C.C.P.A. 48, C.A.D. 671), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10K and all reports on Form 10D required to be
filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10K of the Wachovia Auto
Owner Trust 2008-A (the Exchange Act periodic reports);
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act
periodic reports;
 4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer(s) and based on
my knowledge and the compliance review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with
servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a18 and 15d18
have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this
report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10K.
  /s/ Bridget NelsonName:
    Bridget NelsonTitle:
    Senior Vice President(Senior Officer In Charge of the Servicing Function)
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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARISSA A. GOODMAN,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 06-191 RSL

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ “Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial

Date.” (Dkt. #49). The Court, having considered the stipulated motion, the affidavit of defense

counsel, and the records and files herein, hereby makes the following findings:

1. The reason for the requested continuance is that Ms. Goodman was arraigned

September 7, 2006 on a new charge of illegal transfer of a firearm (RC06-293TSZ). Trial in this

matter has been scheduled for October 30, 2006.

2. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due

diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

3. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case and that the continuance is necessary to ensure effective trial preparation

and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more speedy trial, within the

Case 2:06-cr-00191-RSL Document 50 Filed 09/11/06 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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

2

meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

4. Defendant shall file a speedy trial waiver with the Court within 10 days of the date

of this Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date be continued from September 12, 2006,

to November 13, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of time from the current trial date of

September 12, 2006, up to and including the new proposed trial date of November 13, 2006,

shall be excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq. 

DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00191-RSL Document 50 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 56816.

#### G. Brunella et al. *v.*United States,

protests 728821-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grenadine the same in all material respects as that the subject of *La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 44, C. A. D. 461), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6865

SAVINO BRAXTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ARCANGELO M. TUMINELLI, Attorney at Law,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00508-JKB)

No. 18-6866

SAVINO BRAXTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN F. PURCELL,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-02828-GLR)
2

Submitted: January 11, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Savino Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In No. 18-6865, Savino Braxton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. In No. 18-6866, he appeals the district court’s 

orders denying relief on a separate § 1983 complaint and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Braxton v. Tuminneli, 

No. 1:18-cv-00508-JKB (D. Md. June 22, 2018); Savino v. Purcell, No. 1:15-cv-02828-

GLR (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2017 & June 26, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Before the Third Division,

December 27, 1966

No. P66/385.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., a/c Ucagco, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 227134-K, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), and that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 

the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category 

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE01180.A01 

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
No. P67/358.

#### R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/20706 (New York).

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of starch similar in all material respects to that the subject of *R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 267, Abstract 68309), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  P RUDENTIAL L OCATIONS LLC, a No. 09-16995 Hawaii limited liability company, D.C. No.

Plaintiff-Appellant, 1:09-cv-00128- v. SOM-KSC



#  District of Hawaii, U. S. D EPARTMENT OF H OUSING AND Honolulu U RBAN D EVELOPMENT ,

Defendant-Appellee. ORDER



#  Filed January 18, 2012 Before: A. Wallace Tashima, William A. Fletcher, and

Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

ORDERThe petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on June 9, 2011, and published at 648 F.3d 768, is VACATED. The panel will issue a further order regarding the time and place of argument and the issues to be addressed at argument. IT IS SO ORDERED.

355
#### ST. LUKE’S SUBACUTE CARE HOSPITAL, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tommy THOMPSON, individually and in his capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services;1 et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-15065.

D.C. No. CV-00-674-WHO.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.2

Decided June 14, 2001.

Before O’SGANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

1

. Tommy Thompson is substituted for his predecessor as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

2

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

MEMORANDUM3

The appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 as a preliminary injunction appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we dismiss.

The district court denied St. Luke’s Subacute Care Hospital, Inc.’s request for a preliminary injunction seeking to bar the Secretary from withholding payment for services St. Luke’s provided under the Medicare program. After St. Luke’s filed this appeal, the district court dismissed the underlying action, and St. Luke’s has filed a notice of appeal from that dismissal. We “determine questions of mootness in light of the present circumstances where injunctions are involved.” *Mitchell v. Dupnik,*75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir.1996) *(citing Weinstein v. Bradford,*423 U.S. 147, 148, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)). Because the facts and circumstances supporting the preliminary injunction application have materially changed, we cannot grant the requested relief. *Phillips and Associates Family Law Offices, P.C. [Doe] v. Napolitano,*252 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.2001) (dismissal of underlying appeal renders district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief moot). Accordingly, this appeal is moot. *Id.*

APPEAL DISMISSED.

3

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 305

Tendering the thanks of the Senate to the President pro tempore for the

courteous, dignified, and impartial manner in which he has presided

over the deliberations of the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 15 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Mr. LOTT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed

to

RESOLUTION

Tendering the thanks of the Senate to the President pro

tempore for the courteous, dignified, and impartial manner in which he has presided over the deliberations of

the Senate.

1 Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby

2 tendered to the Honorable Strom Thurmond, President

3 pro tempore of the Senate, for the courteous, dignified,

4 and impartial manner in which he has presided over its

5 deliberations during the second session of the One Hun6 dred Fifth Congress.

Æ
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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN LIMINE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

YUSEF SA’AD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MUKASEY,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-0596RSL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION IN LIMINE

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude defendant

from calling Linda Wabinga as a witness at trial because defendant did not disclose her

previously. Ms. Wabinga is an “Employee Services Manager” who would testify regarding the

“policies and procedures at the [Federal Detention Center]” where plaintiff worked. Having

received no opposition to the motion, and finding it appropriate to grant pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) and 37(c)(1), the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion in limine

Case 2:06-cv-00596-RSL Document 40 Filed 02/28/08 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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN LIMINE - 2

(Dkt. #24).

 DATED this 28th day of February, 2008.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00596-RSL Document 40 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 2
No. 60613.

#### John Yercheck *v.*United States,

protest 257796-K (Tampa).

Wilson, Judge:

The merchandise in this case is invoiced as "Viegel Exact 660L enlarger, with 80 mm. F4.5 lens, and opal lamp illumination system.” It was classified under paragraph 218 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem as “Illuminating articles of every description, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of glass, for use in connection with artificial illumination.”

The plaintiff claims the merchandise properly dutiable under paragraph 1551 of the said act, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 52739, supplemented by T. D. 52820, at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem as “Photographic cameras not specially provided for.”

Paragraph 1551 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides as follows:

> Photographic cameras and parts thereof, not specially provided for, 20 per centum ad valorem: *Provided,*That if the photographic lens is the component of chief value of the camera or of the part in which it is imported, such camera or part, including the photographic lens, shall be dutiable at the rate applicable to such photographic lens when imported separately; * * *.

*457Paragraph 228 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, provides:

> Photographic lenses, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for_ 25% ad val.

It does not appear from the invoice description that the instrument in question is the type of article embraced within paragraph 218 (c), *supra,*under which it was classified. However, other than the invoice description with the official papers, no evidence was presented by the plaintiff herein, who made no appearance at the time of trial, with respect to the functions of this so-called enlarger in suppport of his claim that it should be held dutiable as a photographic camera. Further, the plaintiff has failed to establish the component of chief value in the instrument, in the determination of the proper rate of duty applicable to the merchandise.

On the basis of the record here presented, we are of opinion and hold that the plaintiff in this case has failed in his burden of proving that the involved merchandise is properly classifiable, as claimed. The protest claim in this case is overruled. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

February 1, 1968

No. P68/36.

protest 67/11120 (A) (Los Angeles)

#### Polk’s Hobbies *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the .subject of *James G. Wiley Co., a/c Ungar Electric*Tools, *Inc.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 199, Abstract 66961), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|   | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-190729) pertaining to the 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan of DHT Holdings, Inc., |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-183687) pertaining to the 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan of DHT Holdings, Inc., |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-175351) pertaining to the 2011 Incentive Compensation Plan of DHT Holdings, Inc., |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-167613) pertaining to the 2005 Incentive Compensation Plan of DHT Holdings, Inc., |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (5) | Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-192959) of DHT Holdings, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (6) | Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-176669) of DHT Holdings, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (7) | Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-166765) of DHT Holdings, Inc. and in the related Prospectus; |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|