alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-60098 Summary Calendar

ISMAEL MAHDI OMAR, also known as Ismael Omar, Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A088 739 922
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ismael Mahdi Omar, a native and citizen of Djibouti, Africa, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Conventi o n Against Torture (CAT). He also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Omar makes only conclusional arguments that his removal was barred by the principle of res judicata and that he was prejudiced during his removal U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 2 1, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-60098 Document: 00512092451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2012No. 12-60098

p ro c e e din g s because documentary evidence he submitted in support of hi s cl ai m s
was either not submitted to t he IJ or not considered by the IJ. Omar does not address the BIA’s reasons for rejecting his res judicata argument or its finding that he had a full and fair opportunity t o p r e sent his claims and that the immigration proceedings were not unfair. In addition, he fails to address the BIA’s findings with re spect to his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under CAT. O m ar’ s petitions for review do not provide “even th e s li ght e s t i d e ntif ic atio n of any error” in the BIA’s legal analyses or the application of the analyses to his claims. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Issues not raised and conclusional and inad e q u a t e ly briefed arguments are waived. Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008); Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833; Rodriguez v. INS , 9 F

. 3 d 4 0 8, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Omar’s petitions for review are DENIED.

2 Case: 12-60098 Document: 00512092451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2012
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Johnny W. HINES v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 60887.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: Johnny W. Hines applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 35.1****SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**Re:  Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, f/k/a DCFS USA LLC, in its capacity as Servicer (the "Servicer") under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2010, among Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust 2010-1, as Issuer, Daimler Retail Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Seller and Servicer (the "Servicing Agreement"), for the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (the "Reporting Period") I, Brian T. Stevens, certify that: (a) A review of the Servicer's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision. (b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. Dated:  March 26, 2012  /s/ Brian T. Stevens Name: Brian T. Stevens Title: Vice President and Controller
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2091500
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      61400
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          367400
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        200700
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  219000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2940000
<COMMON>                                           400
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       769800
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             534500
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1304700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      22900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            660900
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   12000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  939500
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  2940000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       654900
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             58400
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      453200
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      511600
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         143300
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              (5800)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  137500
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         34300
<NET-INCOME>                                    103200
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        400
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   102800
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        102500
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        32100
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          172100
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.51


</TABLE>
**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

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended January 2, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   January 28, 2011 | /s/Peter   P. Hausback                                 |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Peter   P. Hausback                                    |
|                           | Executive   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                           | Principal   Financial and Accounting Officer           |

 

----

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-185396-01) of ECA Marcellus
Trust I of our reports dated March 14, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of ECA Marcellus Trust I, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of ECA
Marcellus Trust I, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2013.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLPErnst & Young LLP


Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
March 14, 2014

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONI, Amy Vidrine Samson, Chief Financial Officer of Crown Crafts, Inc. (the “Company”), do herebycertify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending October 1, 2006 (the“Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: November 15, 2006              /s/ Amy Vidrine Samson   Amy Vidrine Samson, Chief Financial Officer
TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 4th QUARTER 2022*

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

NEW

MONEY

Net BILLS Issuance for the quarter 99.90

SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT** MONEY

COUPONS

CHANGE^

3-Year Note 10/17 40.00 -1.00

10-Year Note (r) 10/17 32.00 -1.00

30-Year Bond (r) 10/17 18.00 -1.00 23.24 66.76

20-Year Bond (r) 10/31 12.00 -2.00

5-Year TIPS 10/31 21.00 1.00

2-Year Note 10/31 42.00 -1.00

2-Year FRN 10/31 24.00 0.00

5-Year Note 10/31 43.00 -1.00

7-Year Note 10/31 35.00 -1.00 168.72 8.28

3-Year Note 11/15 40.00 0.00

10-Year Note 11/15 35.00 0.00

30-Year Bond 11/15 21.00 0.00 55.33 40.67

2-Year FRN (r) 11/25 22.00 0.00 0.00 22.00

20-Year Bond 11/30 15.00 0.00

10-Year TIPS (r) 11/30 15.00 1.00

2-Year Note 11/30 42.00 0.00

5-Year Note 11/30 43.00 0.00

7-Year Note 11/30 35.00 0.00 92.73 57.27

3-Year Note 12/15 40.00 0.00

10-Year Note (r) 12/15 32.00 0.00

30-Year Bond (r) 12/15 18.00 0.00 25.89 64.11

5-Year TIPS (r) 12/30 19.00 1.00

2-Year FRN (r) 12/30 22.00 0.00 0.00 41.00

666.00 365.90 300.10

Estimates are italicized. r = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 400

* This Financing table is meant to be illustrative based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will actually issue

debt in the future.

** Maturing amount is based on private holdings as of 8/1/2022 and subject to change based on Fed purchases.

^ Change is with respect to previous auction. For securities with reopenings, change from new cusip to new cusip, 1st reopening

 to 1st reopening, and etc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RODERICK W. MILLER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

No. 98-7855

EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents-Appellees.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

(S. Ct. No. 99-6233)

Submitted: May 13, 1999

Decided: May 19, 1999

Decided on Remand: May 31, 2000

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by

unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Roderick W. Miller, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case appears before this court for the second time pursuant to

the order of the Supreme Court vacating our prior judgment and

remanding for further consideration in light of the Court's decision in

Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 1029 (2000). See Miller v. Kaloroumakis, 120 S. Ct. 1239 (2000). Because the analysis

prescribed by Roe is highly fact-specific, we conclude that it should

be performed by the district court in the first instance. Accordingly,

we grant a certificate of appealability as to Miller's claims of ineffective assistance relating to counsel's failure to consult with his client

and inquire as to the need for an appeal, and his related claim that this

ineffective assistance provided cause for Miller's failure to timely

raise his numerous claims of trial court error on appeal, vacate the

portions of the district court's order relating to these issues, and

remand for further consideration in light of Roe . Because our prior

dismissal of Miller's remaining ineffective assistance claims falls outside the scope of the Supreme Court's remand, we again deny a certificate of appealability as to those claims and dismiss Miller's appeal

of those claims. See Lowery v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 206 F.3d 431,

437 (4th Cir. 2000). 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

 2
# draftmay
#### Dewey LIGHTSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 14, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, and Paul C. Helm, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Dewey Lightsey, was charged by information with grand larceny of an airboat owned by the DeSoto County Sheriff’s Department. He was tried by a jury and convicted. The trial judge adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to three years in state prison. On this appeal, appellant complains that his case was prejudiced by the state’s failure to disclose the name of one of its witnesses until the day of trial. We agree and reverse for a new trial.

Despite a defense demand for the names of all witnesses, made pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220, the state did not disclose the name of Gerald Lewis until the day of the trial. This was a clear violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; and so before allowing Lewis to testify, it was the duty of the trial court to make an adequate inquiry to determine whether the appellant was harmed or prejudiced by the state’s noncompliance. *Richardson v. State,*246 *825So.2d 771 (Fla.1971); *Johnson v. State,*312 So.2d 231 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The court made no such inquiry. While it did look into the circumstances surrounding the state’s failure to disclose, it did not investigate the effect of that failure upon defendant’s case. Thus, unless the court’s error was harmless, and we do not believe that it was, we must reverse. *Johnson v. State, supra.*

Gerald Lewis’ testimony was the only testimony which corroborated that of the state’s main witness John Howell who was a codefendant in the case. Consequently although Lewis failed positively to identify the appellant, his testimony was prejudicial to appellant since the uncorroborated testimony of a codefendant is to be treated with special caution by the jury. *Dupree v. State,*195 So.2d 1 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). This was particularly so in this case because there was evidence to show that Howell named appellant as a codefendant only after investigators told him that they believed there were two people involved in the crime and that they were prepared to arrest Howell’s wife if he did not name a second person.

The judgment and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

McNULTY, A. C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,765
<SECURITIES>                                       986
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,457
<PP&E>                                           1,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                     408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,421
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,614
<SALES>                                         12,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,042
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                       950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,359
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOSEPH S. CALDWELL, JR.,

Respondent

v.

PHILIP JAURIGUE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 521 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21 st day of March, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue, rephrased for brevity and clarity, is:

(1) Does the Court’s holding in A.S. v. I.S. , 130 A.3d 763 (Pa. 2015), extend

beyond the facts of that case and create child support obligations in third

parties who seek and obtain custody rights less than those held by a

biological parent?
Exhibit 32

 

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of A.T. Cross Company, a Rhode Island corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33552]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on 
Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Fire Protection will hold a meeting on 
January 22, 1998, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Thursday, January 22, 1998-8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business.
    The Subcommittee will review the staff's schedule and status for 
the development of the proposed Fire Protection Rule. The purpose of 
this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, 
for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, and other interested 
persons regarding this review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Mr. Amarjit Singh (telephone 301/415-6899) between 7:30 
a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EST). Persons planning to attend this meeting are 
urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: December 17, 1997.
Gail H. Marcus,
Acting Deputy Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-33552 Filed 12-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P