alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RRAFMAN KOCI,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 12-70998

Agency No. A075-682-288

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2017** 

Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, GILMAN,*** and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

DEC 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Rrafman Koci, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his third motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Koci’s third motion to

reopen. Ordinarily, “a party may file only one motion to reopen deportation or

exclusion proceedings . . . and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after

the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered . . . .” 8 C.F.R. §

1003.2(c)(2). A statutory exception is available, however, if the petitioner presents

evidence that is “material and was not available and could not have been

discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” Id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 

Koci’s third motion to reopen is both untimely and successive. Moreover,

Koci has failed to demonstrate a material change of conditions in Albania that

would entitle him to the statutory exception. The publication of our 2008

memorandum disposition on the Internet is not material to Koci’s application for

relief because Koci has not demonstrated that the publication increased his risk of

harm in Albania. Nor are the news articles attached to Koci’s motion material. 

Although they demonstrate that tensions between democrats and socialists

continue, they do not establish a material change in Albania. Even more

importantly, however, Koci has not presented evidence that negates the

2
Immigration Judge’s initial adverse credibility finding, which we affirmed in a

prior appeal. Koci v. Mukasey, 270 F. App’x 644 (9th Cir. 2008). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

3
#### SOUTH AMERICAN SAFARIS, LTD., et al., Appellants, v. Dennis B. STITELY, and Frank Aprigliano, Appellees.

No. 72-1144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32   Certifications   In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 of American General Finance Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; 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/                                               | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|      |                                                   | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|      | President and Chief Executive Officer             |                         
|      | /s/                                               | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      |                                                   | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |                         
|Date: | August 12, 2009                                   |                          |  | 

75
#### Estelle BRUST, Petitioner, v. Bernard BRUST, Respondent.

No. 42653.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d 400.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
Preflight checklist Phantom & R/C battery charged Tablet charged (reset or remove apps from memory)

Propellers installed and tightened Remove gimbal lock Gimbal not obstructed (grass) Tablet volume & luminosity to MAX Tablet « Do Not Disturb » Mode Tablet to R/C cable attached Tablet Wifi & BT OFF R/C ON R/C in P-Mode Phantom ON Launch DJI Pilot app

Check values : Compass status IMU values (0, 1, 1400-1600) Gain values Max height RTH height (depends on flight location) R/C EXP & Gain (0,5-0,4-0,5) VPS ON (if indoor flight) Satellite status

Format SD card Camera settings (LOG, video size, ...) Gimbal configuration (1, 2 or 3) CHECK HOME POINT CHECK BATTERY STATUS (Cells)

Takeoff Hover 30 seconds & check stability

1. Cut2. Fold 3. Laminate Aircraft LED Status

RC LED Status
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33001]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Arkansas Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6:00 
p.m. and adjourn at 8:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 1998, at the 
Little Rock Hilton, 925 South University, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204. 
The purpose of the meeting is to provide orientation for new members, 
brief the Committee on Commission activities, and plan future Committee 
activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the 
Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, December 10, 1997.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 97-33001 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio A. CHAVEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-55341.

D.C. Nos. CV-01-00638-JSR, CR-88-00723-JSR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2000.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*866MEMORANDUM **

Antonio A. Chavez appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 1990 sentence for conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute, possession of heroin and possession of cocaine. The district court issued a certificate of appealability with respect to Chavez’s claims based on the applicability of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We recently held that the rule announced in *Apprendi*does not apply retroactively to cases on initial collateral review. *United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes,*282 F.3d 664, 667-71 (9th Cir.2002). The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

**

 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Office of the Secretary 

 December 17, 2013 

Response to October 28 Comment 

 Thank you for the letter dated October 28, 2013, which you submitted in connection with 

Polypore International, Inc.’s (“Polypore”) Application for Approval of the Divestiture of 

Microporous (“Application”), filed on September 24, 2013. Pursuant to the order in Docket No. 

9327, Polypore requested prior Commission approval of its proposal to divest Microporous to 

Seven Mile Capital Partners (“Seven Mile”). In your letter, you expressed concerns with a 

divestiture to Seven Mile because you believe that Seven Mile has too many ties to Polypore, 

and would be a weak competitor. You also expressed concerns with Seven Mile’s CEO choice 

for the new business, and the fact that Polypore will profit from the divestiture. 

 In connection with its evaluation of this proposed transaction, the Commission received 

information from numerous sources, including the parties to the transaction and third parties, in 

addition to letters submitted by commenters during the public comment period. 

 The purpose of the divestiture is to restore competition lost through the transaction. In 

evaluating Polypore’s Application, the Commission analyzed all of the information available to 

it against that standard, including the public comments. In particular, the Commission 

thoroughly reviewed Seven Mile’s finances, investment history, and financial incentives, as well 

as its independence from Polypore. Seven Mile’s proposed CEO, Mr. Koch, has successfully 

worked with and overseen manufacturing operations around the world, including in the United 

States, and intends to move his family to Tennessee and work closely with the employees there. 

Finally, so long as a respondent subject to a divestiture order completes the required transaction 

on time, and to a buyer and in a manner that receives the Commission’s prior approval, nothing 

in the Commission’s Order prevents Polypore from making a profit on the divestiture of 

Microporous, since that does not interfere with the remedial goals of the Order. The 

Commission has, thus, determined to approve the proposed transaction. 

It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work on antitrust 

and consumer protection issues, and we appreciate your interest in this matter. 

By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Wright not participating. 

 Donald S. Clark 

 Secretary
FOIA Request: OFAC license database

General

Tracking Information

Request Number 2011-10-044 Request Status Active - One

Office

Date Closed

Date of Request

Original Date

Received

Respond By

10/9/2011

10/11/2011

11/23/2011

If Closed - Other,

specify reason

If Imperfect, Date

Notice Sent

Date Perfected

Request Recv'd

10/11/2011

Create Document

Library

Update Library

No

Requestor Information - (Click name for additional details)

Requestor

Requesting

Organization

Fee Category

clU Tracey Eaton

Journalist

Media/Press

E-Mail

Primary Phone

Request Details

Freedom of Information Act Track Track II - Complex

OFAC license database

This is a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

• Date range of FOIA request: 2011.

• Documents requested: OFAC's current Licensing Database of Individuals and Companies.

Request Type

Short Description

Request Details

The Treasury Department's web site offers for download Excel files containing:

• A 2009 OFAC Licensing Database of Individuals and Companies

• An OFAC - apparently from 2008 - Licensing Database of Individuals and Companies

I am writing to ask if you could please send me via email an Excel file containing OFAC's current 2011

Licensing Database of Individuals and Companies.

I have been a journalist since 1983. I was a correspondent for the Dallas Morning News for 12 years in

Mexico and Cuba. I am now a freelance reporter and photographer.

Material I am requesting through this FOIA letter will certainly be published. Please consider furnishing the

documents without charge or at a reduced rate. I am not

requesting these documents for commercial use. Disclosure of these documents is in the public interest and

will likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of OFAC's operations.

If you should decide to charge applicable fees, I agree to pay the charges, preferably the cost of

reproduction alone and excluding fees for the first 100 pages as specified by Title 22 Code of Federal

Regulations 171.15(c).

As the FOIA reqUires, please release all reasonably segregable nonexempt portions of documents.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at 386-283-2902 or

maninhavana@yahoo.com. I look forward to receiving your response within the 20-day statutory time

period.

Sincerely,

Tracey Eaton

Description of

Documents Sent

https:llust.publicrecordstracker.coml_forms/print/custformprint.aspx?objectType= 10002... 10/13/2011
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bernard JONES v. Judge Bernard J. BAGERT et al.

No. 61486.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Bernard Jones applying for writ of mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied. Appeal pending.
#### Stephen SIRK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-787.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 13, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.02
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
FLEX 2010 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
The Flex 2010 Deferred Compensation Plan, which was effective as of July 1, 2010, is hereby amended in the following manner.  This Amendment is effective as of January 1, 2019.
Section 4(a) is amended by the addition of the following thereto:
“In the case of a Company with a taxable year other than the calendar year, the Committee or Plan Administrator may determine that “Fiscal Year Compensation” may be deferred at the Participant’s election if the election to defer such compensation is made not later than the close of the Company’s taxable year immediately preceding the first taxable year of the Company in which any services are performed for which such compensation is payable, in accordance with Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-2(a)(6).  For purposes of this paragraph, the term “Fiscal Year Compensation” means compensation relating to a period of service coextensive with the taxable year of the Company (or consecutive taxable years of the Company), of which no amount is paid or payable during the Company’s taxable year (or years) constituting the period of service.  For example, Fiscal Year Compensation generally would include a bonus to a Participant that is based on a service period consisting of the Company’s taxable year ending March 31, 2021, where the amount will be paid after that date; and a deferral of such bonus could be elected by the Participant prior to April 1, 2020 or such earlier date as determined by the Committee or Plan Administrator.
A determination by the Committee or Plan Administrator to allow deferrals of Fiscal Year Compensation in accordance with the prior paragraph shall not prevent the Committee or Plan Administrator from also permitting Participants to elect to defer other types of compensation at other times permitted by the Treasury Regulations.  For example, a Participant may be allowed to elect to defer salary for services to be performed in a calendar year if such election is made prior to calendar year at the time and in the manner determined by the Committee or Plan Administrator.”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan Administrator has executed this Amendment on the date set forth below.
						
		PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
FLEX 2010 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
By:    /s/ Phil Ulrich                                        
Title:    Chief Human Resources Officer    
Date:    August 16, 2019
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 Annual Report of GENESIS  COMPANIES  GROUP, INC (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Daniel F. Medina, CEO of the company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ Daniel F. Medina
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Daniel F. Medina,  CEO

Dated:  July 16, 2008
EX-4.4




 Exhibit 4.4 

CERTIFICATE OF DOMESTICATION 

OF 
 SUPERNOVA PARTNERS
ACQUISITION COMPANY II, LTD. 
  
  

Pursuant to Sections 103 and 388 of the General 

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware 
  

 
 Supernova
Partners Acquisition Company II, Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company, which intends to domesticate as a Delaware corporation pursuant to this Certificate of Domestication (upon such domestication to be renamed “Rigetti Computing, Inc.”
and referred to herein after such time as the “Company”), does hereby certify to the following facts relating to the domestication of the Corporation in the State of Delaware: 

1.    The Company was originally incorporated on the 22nd day of December, 2020 under the laws of the Cayman Islands. 

2.    The name of the Company immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is Supernova Partners
Acquisition Company II, Ltd. 
 3.    The name of the Company as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation is
Rigetti Computing, Inc. 
 4.    The jurisdiction that constituted the seat, siege social or principal place of business
or central administration of the Company immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is the Cayman Islands. 

5.    The domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document, instrument, agreement or other
writing, as the case may be, governing the internal affairs of Supernova Partners Acquisition Company II, Ltd. and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware law, as appropriate. 











 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Certificate of Domestication to be
executed in its name this [ ● ] day of [ ● ], 2021. 
  

			
	 SUPERNOVA PARTNERS ACQUISITION

COMPANY II, LTD., a Cayman Islands company

		
	By:	 	  

		 	Name:
		 	Title:
#### Elaine Marie RIGEL, Appellant, v. Charles Edward RIGEL, Appellee.

No. 77-607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

Tendrich & Todd, Miami, for appellant.

Charles Edward Rigel, in pro. per.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of the principle of law stated in *Cherney v. Cherney,*146 So.2d 914 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); and *Boyle v. Boyle,*164 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). See also *Castor v. Castor,*316 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40774 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL SEAN ANOMAN, also known as Mike Jones, also known as Joseph James Anoman, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-31-19

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Michael Sean Anoman has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Anoman has filed a response. Although Anoman asserts that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of this issue on direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Our independent review of the brief, Anoman’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,No. 06-40774 -2- counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5TH C IR . R. 42.2. Anoman’s request for the appointment of a new attorney is
DENIED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129126(26) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, HOUSEHOLD BANK (NEVADA), N A, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129126 

 COA: 259650 

Alcona CC: 04-000274-AV 

81st DC: 03-000201-GC 

RODNEY T. SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of 

January 30, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the 

order was entered erroneously. 

d0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
Appeals dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed Ju ly 11 , 202 4
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 2 4

- 00 269

- CR NO. 14

- 24

- 00270

- CR

____________ TIFFANY HERRERA , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1832938 & 1832940

MEMORANDUM O PINION Appellant entered a plea of no guilty to two charges of causing bodily injury to a child under fifteen years of age

. The record reflects that in exchange for appellant’s guilty pleas, the State agreed to dismiss a third criminal charge against appellant . We dismiss the appeal s

. Consistent with the agreement between the parties, the trial court certified2

that each of these cases was a plea bargain case and that appellant had no right of appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). An agreement under which the State dismisses a criminal proceeding in exchange for a guilty plea is a plea bargain for purposes of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2). Kennedy v. State , 297 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ; Shankle v. State , 119 S.W.3d 808, 813

– 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

. Because appellant’s plea s w ere made pursuant to a plea bargain, s he may appeal only matters raised by a written pre

- trial motion or with the trial court’s permission. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant is not appealing any pre

trial rulings. The record does not contain any adverse pre
- trial rulings

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal s

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Wilson. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).