alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60559

Summary Calendar

ABDULKARIM WARSAME MOHAMED,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 763 046

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abdulkarim Warsame Mohamed petitions this court to review a decision

by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluding that his appeal of an 

order of removal was untimely. The decision also explained, in response to a

request by Mohamed for assistance filing a motion to reopen, that such a 

motion must be filed with the immigration judge in light of Mohamed’s failure 

to timely appeal.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 23, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60559 Document: 00514968846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
No. 17-60559

2

For the first time in his pro se petition to this court, Mohamed offers 

several reasons why he missed the 30-day deadline for filing an appeal before 

the BIA: because he did not have the transcript and could not appeal without 

it, he did not know what an appeal was, no one informed him of the deadline, 

he was in shock over the denial of his asylum request, and the Government 

waived his right to appeal. We liberally construe these assertions as arguing 

that the BIA should have exercised its discretion to consider the untimely 

appeal. See, e.g., Le v. Holder, 340 F. App’x 201, 204-07 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Additionally, for the first time, Mohamed asserts that changes in the 

conditions within his home country of Somalia since 2018 have made it more 

dangerous for him to return. 

We do not review an order by the BIA unless “the alien has exhausted 

all administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(d)(1); see also Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Failure 

to exhaust an issue creates a jurisdictional bar as to that issue.”). An alien 

fails to exhaust administrative remedies for an issue when that issue “is not 

raised in the first instance before the BIA--either on direct appeal or in a 

motion to reopen.” Roy, 389 F.3d at 137 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

Because Mohamed did not exhaust the issues raised in his petition for 

review, it is DISMISSED.

 Case: 17-60559 Document: 00514968846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
Exhibit 23.02


                   CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CONSULTANT



        I consent to the use of my report respecting the estimated oil reserve
information as of December 31, 2002, for the Montana and Nevada producing
properties of FX Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), and the discussion of such report
as contained in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002 and to the incorporation by reference of such report as it is
referred to in the Company's annual report into the registration statement on
Form S-3 (SEC File No. 333-80489).

Larry D. Krause

/s/ Larry D. Krause

Billings, Montana
March 20, 2003
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Brian T. Stevens, certify that:
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  Mercedes-Benz  Auto  Receivables  Trust 2009-1  (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 and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement 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.
In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following
unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee.
Date:  March 24, 2010
/s/ Brian T. Stevens

Name: Brian T. Stevens Title: Vice President and Controller  (senior officer of Servicer in charge of servicing function)
Presidential Documents

60995

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 220

Friday, November 14, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Memorandum of November 4, 1997

Authorization To Redelegate Certain Responsibilities Vested

in the President and Delegated to the Secretary of State

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United

States, including section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, to the

extent that you consider doing so appropriate to facilitate the consolidation

of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the Department of State,

I hereby authorize you to redelegate to any officer of the executive branch

any or all authorities vested in the President that are delegated to the

Secretary of State by any act, order, determination, delegation of authority,

regulation, or Executive order heretofore or hereinafter enacted or issued

and that have been or may be redelegated to the Under Secretary of State

for Arms Control and International Security Affairs.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal

[FR Doc. 97–30160

Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, November 4, 1997.

œ–

Filed 11–13–97; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
#### Garcia ANDREWS, Appellant, v. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-495.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 22, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jacob ENGLANDER, etc., Appellant, v. SOCIETE ANONYME DE LA BENEDICTINE DISTILLERIE, etc.

No. 5719.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

May 18, 1936.

On Rehearing Dec. 9, 1936.

Louis B. Englander, of Newark; N. J., for appellant.

Asher Blum, of New York City, and Alexander T. Schenck, of Newark, N. J. (Mock & Blum, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the trade-mark rights to the manufacture of Benedictine, a well-known French liquer. The litigated cases over the right to that name will be found in many places in legal literature and call for no restatement here.

After careful examination of the proofs we are satisfied the court below committed no error in its decree enjoining the defendants from using the word “Benedictine” in the sale of their product.

So holding, the decree below is affirmed.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-83,229-01

EX P ARTE BRANDON DAR NELL ROB INSON, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1 2 7 5 3 7 1 - A IN THE 177 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Arti cl e 1 1
. 0 7 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 4 1 8 S
. W
. 2 d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated robber y with a dea dly

wea pon and sentenced to e ighte en year s’ imprisonment. The F irst Court of Appea ls aff

irmed his conviction. Robinson v. State , 01-12-00593- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 14, 2013)(not de signated for publica tion). Applicant contends that his appe ll a te c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e ffe ctive assistance beca use counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been aff irmed and failed to inform Applicant2

of his right to file a pro se petition for discre tionary revie w. Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. The trial court has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been aff

irmed and failed to provide Applicant notice of his right to fil e a pro se petition for discretionar

y revie w, along with the applicable deadlines. The trial court rec ommends that relief be grante d. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of the judgme nt of the First Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 01-12-00593- CR that aff irmed his c onviction in Cause No. 1275371 from the 177 J udicial District Court of Har ris t h County
. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues. Deliver ed: May

20, 2015 Do not publish
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MARIO SOLAR, ) a/k/a MARIO OSCAR SOLAR, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-690 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 18, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Lon Arend, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LaROSE, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Larry W. Sayre, Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Collins Industries, Inc., certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: | June 9, 2004 |                                          
|------ | ------------ | -----------------------------------------
|       |              |                                          
|       | By           |                                          
|       |              | /s/ Larry  W. Sayre                      
|       |              | Larry W. Sayre, Vice President of Finance
|       |              | and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6910

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

COREY VIDEL SWAIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CR-93-71-F, CA-96-247-5-F)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 25, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Videl Swain, Appellant Pro Se. William Arthur Webb, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charles Edwin Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Swain, Nos. CR-93-71-F; CA-96-247-5-F

(E.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

131489 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. SUZANNE VERBRUGGHE, as Stephen J. Markman, Personal Representative of the Justices Estate of George Verbrugghe, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 131489 COA: 263686 Macomb CC: 04-004423-NH SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL – MACOMB COUNTY, INC., ARSENIO V. DeLEON, M.D., and MARIUS LAURINAITIS, M.D. Defendants-Appellees,

and

JAVED ZIA, M.D., Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of October 17, 2007, the appli cation for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in
Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445-6). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on April 9, 2008, 480 Mich 1159 (2008), the application is again considered, and in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Washington v Sinai Hospital of Greater Detroit , 478 Mich 412 (2007), and Braverman

, supra

.

l0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61492-61493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30158]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 111297B]


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat; Public 
meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is convening a meeting of the west coast salmon essential 
fish habitat (EFH) technical team to review

[[Page 61493]]

EFH descriptions for salmon and adverse affects on salmon EFH. The 
meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The technical team meeting is on November 18, 1997, from 9:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be at the Lloyd Center Doubletree Hotel, 
1000 NE Multnomah, Portland, OR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Scordino, NMFS, 206/526-6143.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is in the process of developing 
recommendations on EFH for west coast salmon in accordance with recent 
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act. EFH recommendations to be presented to the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council for an amendment to the salmon fishery management 
plan include a description of EFH for coho salmon, chinook salmon, pink 
salmon and sockeye salmon; a description of adverse effects to EFH, 
including fishing and nonfishing threats; and a description of measures 
to ensure the conservation and enhancement of EFH.
    NMFS has formed a technical team consisting of fishing industry, 
state, tribal, university, and Federal individuals to provide technical 
input and advice on the development of the NMFS recommendations. The 
technical team will meet 2 to 3 times between November and March to 
review draft EFH documents as they are prepared. The first meeting of 
the technical team is scheduled for November 18, 1997. The meetings 
will be open to the public, and the public will have an opportunity to 
comment. EFH documents will be available at the meeting. EFH background 
material can also be found on the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 
Commission website at www.psmfc.org/efh.html.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be requested at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 12, 1997.
Bruce Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-30158 Filed 11-12-97; 3:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Paul M. Newcomer 

pmn@novaralaw.com 

August 30, 2021 

Danielle.Norris@treasury.gov 

Danielle Norris, MPRA Director 

Department of the Treasury 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20220 

 

 

 

 

Re: Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters – Detroit & Vicinity 

Carpenters Pension Trust Fund 

Withdrawal of Second Application for Approval of Suspension of Benefits 

Dear Ms. Norris: 

On September 30, 2020, the Michigan regional Council of Carpenters – Detroit & 

Vicinity, Carpenters Pension Trust Fund (the plan), filed its Second Application for Approval 

of Suspension of Benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) 

with Treasury. Treasury acknowledged that the filing was complete as of that date and, with 

the exception of a stay period agreed by the parties, we understand that the application has 

been under review from that time. 

The enactment on March 11, 2021 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP), 

and the publication on July 12, 2021, of PBGC’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) implementing 

Subtitle H of ARP, has required the Trustees of the plan to consider whether availability of 

special financial assistance under the IFR presents a prudent alternative to the proposed 

suspension of benefits. 
 

Danielle Norris, MPRA Director 

Department of the Treasury 

August 30, 2021 

Page Two 

 

 

 

By way of formal action as authorized by the plan’s Agreement and Declaration of 

Trust the Trustees have determined that withdrawing the Second Application is in the best 

interest of all of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries, and have authorized us to advise 

you of that decision. If there is any further information that you require, please let us know. 

On behalf of the Trustees, we thank Treasury for their attention to and assistance with this 

matter. 

Very truly yours, 

NOVARA TESIJA CATENACCI 

MCDONALD & BAAS, PLLC 

/s/Paul M. Newcomer 

Paul M. Newcomer 

PMN/mcm
256 La. 1150

#### Howard HERBERT v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY et al.

No. 50961.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 1970.

In re: Dr. Byron J. Casey, Anesthesia Associates and the Travelers Indemnity Company et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 239 So. 2d 367.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.

SUMMERS, Justice,

is of the opinion that the Court’s statements concerning unlicensed physicians as referred to in La. R.S. 37:1284 are erroneous. However, since the opinion concedes the doctors involved were licensed, I agree the result reached is proper.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1594 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1594

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to exclude certain evictions and 
 information relating to such evictions from consumer reports, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2021

   Mr. Stanton (for himself, Ms. Scanlon, Mr. Sires, Mr. Thompson of 
    Mississippi, Ms. Norton, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Carson, Ms. Moore of 
    Wisconsin, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. 
 Blumenauer, and Mrs. Hayes) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to exclude certain evictions and 
 information relating to such evictions from consumer reports, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``COVID-19 Eviction Consumer Report 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO CERTAIN EVICTIONS FROM 
              CONSUMER REPORTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 605(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 
(15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) An eviction, or any information related to an 
        eviction or a proceeding seeking eviction, of a consumer from a 
        rental dwelling that occurred during the period beginning March 
        13, 2020, and ending 120 days after the date on which the 
        national emergency concerning the novel coronavirus disease 
        (COVID-19) outbreak declared by the President on March 13, 
        2020, under the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et 
        seq.) terminates.''.
    (b) Applicability.--This Act and the amendments made by this Act 
shall apply to any consumer report (as defined in section 603 of the 
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a)) issued on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
----

**EXHIBIT      32.01**

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:                  /s/ | William                  Pagano                                     |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:                    | William                  Pagano                                     |   |
|                     | Chief                  Executive Officer                            |   |
|                     | Date:     August                  27, 2007 |   |

----