alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1229

JOSE CONTRERAS-CARRILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: September 29, 2021 Decided: October 26, 2021

Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Remi Da RochaAfodu, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Contreras-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an 

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal under 8 

U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The denial of relief was based on the finding that Contreras-Carrillo 

failed to show that his removal would be an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship 

to his three citizen-sons. We review this determination as a mixed question of fact and 

law. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 559-60 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed 

the record and conclude that there is no error. We have considered Contreras-Carrillo’s 

claim that his removal would violate his citizen-sons’ rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments and find this claim to be without merit. See Marin-Garcia v. Holder, 647 

F.3d 666, 672 (7th Cir. 2011); Payne-Barahona v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007);

Gallanosa v. United States, 785 F.2d 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal questions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"denaliadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/denaliadmin\/","title":"Funding Requests","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"C8GogshnaJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/funding-requests\/\">Funding Requests<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/funding-requests\/embed\/#?secret=C8GogshnaJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Funding Requests” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"C8GogshnaJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
RE: Petition of Fukunaga & Associates, Inc. for Exemption from Certain Federal Aviation 

Regulations to Operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Pursuant to Section 333 ofthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization 

and Reform Act (FMRA) and 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) part 11, Fukunaga & 

Associates, Inc. (F AINC) hereby petitions the FAA for exemption from the requirements of 14 

CFR § 61.113 (a) & (b), 45.23 (b), 61.101 (e)(4)&(e)(5), 61.133 (a), 61.23 (a) & (c), 61.315 (a), 

91.7 (a), 91.119 (c), 91.121,91.151 (a) & (b), 91.405 (a), 91.407 (a)(1), 91.409 (a)(1) & (a)(2), 

91.417 (a) & (b), and any other rules the FAA deems necessary, to enable FAINC to operate an 

Unmanned Aircraft System (DJI Phantom 2) for aerial data collection. 

Background Information 

Fukunaga & Associates, Inc. is a Small Business firm of consulting engineers engaged in 

providing civil and environmental engineering services for private and public works 

development projects. The firm was incorporated on December 5, 1969. For over 45 years, 

Fukunaga & Associates, Inc. has provided consulting engineering services to numerous clients 

throughout the State of Hawaii and the Pacific Rim. Our clients have included the State of 

Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu, County of Maui, County of Kauai, County of Hawaii, the 

U.S. Navy and Army, and other public and private organizations. 

Aerial Operation Intention 

Specifically, FAINC seeks to operate UAS for site inspections and construction photos 

before and after for documentation purposes. The objective of our Unmanned Aircraft System 

(DJI Phantom 2) aerial operations is to provide our clients with high-quality photos and videos 

for their projects which can be incorporated into various reports and engineering/planning 

documents. The ability to provide these services to local businesses and individual clients will 

benefit them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have before. Traditional 

methods of aerial photography/videography are not viable options for the average consumer as 

they are costly and involve the use of larger aircraft carrying humans and flammable fuel. By 

utilizing the UAS the same results can be achieve with safer conditions. 

RJKUNA.Gl\ &ASS:D.ATES, INC. 
repairs. Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or private property without the 

owner's permission. The UAS will only be operated within visual line of sight and will not be 

flown near airports or above 400 feet. The requests of this petition are similar to those of Keanu 

Kuna, who has received Section 333 exemption for comparable aircraft for similar operations. 

Please do not hesitate to contact Lance Manabe, Business Administrator at (808) 944-

1821 or Lmanabe(a),fukunagaengineers.com, with any questions about this filing. 

Sincerely, 

FUKUNAGA & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Lance H. Manabe 

Business Administrator 

Fukunaga & Associates, Inc. 

1357 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1530 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

Ph. (808) 944-1821 

Fax (808) 946-9339 

Attachment
Calibration Curve 5/6/2013

# GPC Broad Summary and Slice ReportChannel 410 SampleName CTL54123 Stobicoll H 1506 Submitter Lanza Vial 432 

### Millennium BASF Corporation
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2076

DENNIS RAY GRAVES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:16-cv-01131-JCC-JFA)

Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Ray Graves, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Ray Graves seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order construing his petition for a writ of mandamus as a 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it as successive 

and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Graves has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3857 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3857

 To permit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
    enter into cooperative research and development agreements for 
                       environmental protection.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1994

  Mr. Olver introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
    enter into cooperative research and development agreements for 
                       environmental protection.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
              AGREEMENTS.

    The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may, 
subject to section 2, enter into cooperative research and development 
agreements with colleges and universities, environmental protection 
agencies of the several States, and nonprofit organizations to 
participate in a cooperative research unit to develop adequate, 
coordinated, cooperative research and training programs relating to the 
protection of the environment.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS.

    The participation of the Environmental Protection Agency in a 
cooperative research unit under an agreement referred to in section 1 
shall be limited to the following:
            (1) The assignment by the Administrator of scientific 
        personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency to serve at 
        the cooperative research unit under the terms of the agreement.
            (2) The provision of assistance (including reasonable 
        financial compensation) for the work of researchers on 
        environmental protection projects conducted pursuant to the 
        agreement.
            (3) The provision, for the use of the cooperative research 
        unit in carrying out its purposes under the agreement, of any 
        equipment available to the Secretary for such purposes.
            (4) The payment of incidental expenses of the personnel of 
        the Environmental Protection Agency and of employees of any 
        other entity assigned to the cooperative research unit under 
        the agreement.

                                 <all>
```
----

----

I Comunicações

Comissão

----

Taxas de câmbio do euro (1)

15 de Março de 2005

(2005/C 64/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fonte: Taxas de câmbio de referência publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu.

----

----

Documentos COM, à excepção das propostas legislativas, adoptados pela Comissão

(2005/C 64/02)

Estes textos estão disponíveis em: EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

----

----

Autorização de auxílios concedidos pelos Estados no âmbito das disposições dos artigos 87.o e 88.o do Tratado CE

A respeito dos quais a Comissão não levanta objecções

(2005/C 64/03)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

Data de adopção: 

Estado-Membro: Alemanha (Saxónia- Anhalt)

N.o do auxílio: N 611/2003

Denominação: Auxílio a um grande projecto de investimento no âmbito do Enquadramento multissectorial dos auxílios regionais para grandes projectos de investimento de 1998 a favor da e-glass AG

Objectivo: Realização de um grande projecto de investimento relativo à construção de uma fábrica de vidro plano em bruto

Base jurídica: Regimes de auxílio aprovados: Gemeinschaftsaufgabe «Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur»; Investitions-zulagengesetz 1999 ou regime de acompanhamento (se for aprovado); Programm für unmittelbare Bürgschaften des Bundes und der Länder in den neuen Bundesländern und Berlin Ost

Custos elegíveis totais: 121 milhões de euros

Intensidade: 35 % brutos

Duração: 15 de Abril de 2003-31 de Dezembro de 2005

Outras informações: Compromisso da Alemanha de respeitar as obrigações em matéria de controlo a posteriori nos termos do ponto 6 do Enquadramento multissectorial dos auxílios regionais para grandes projectos de investimento.

O texto da decisão na(s) língua(s) que faz(em) fé, omitidos os dados confidenciais, está disponível no site:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

----

II Actos preparatórios

Comissão

----

Propostas legislativas adoptadas pela Comissão

(2005/C 64/04)

Estes textos estão disponíveis em: EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

----
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Finance and Accounting Service Providing payment services for the U.S. Department of Defense

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Military Member		 
-  Retired Military & Annuitant		 
-  Civilian Employee		 
-  Contractor & Vendor		 

HomefoiaSubpoenas & Court Orders

## Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

                          - Overview
                          - Information Required to Conduct a Search 
                          - Expedited Processing and Fees
                          - Submit a FOIA Request
                          - Frequently Asked Questions

## Privacy Act (PA)

                          - Overview
                          - Submit a Privacy Act Request 
                          - System of Records Notices (SORN)
                          - Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA)
                          - Frequently Asked Questions

## Other FOIA Information

                          - Subpoenas & Court Orders
                          - Request Records on behalf of an Individual other than Yourself
                          - State Agencies
                          - Public Liaison/Contact Us
                          - Reading Room

### Subpoenas and Court Orders

#####  

           

Page Updated January 31, 2024

### Stay Connected

Department of Defense     Department of Veterans Affairs     Military Employment Verification     Warrior Care Website     Defense Contract Mgmt Agency  DoD Forms     Department of State     Civilian Personnel Mgmt Service     DTS Travel Center     System for Award Mgmt (SAM)    Congressional/LegislationPersonnel Force Innovation     Freedom of Information Act     DFAS Hotline   Contact Us     Accessibility / Section 508    EEO / No Fear Act  

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13467

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICCI LAMONT DENNARD, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00026-LAG-TQL-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13467 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13467

Before WILSON, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Price, appointed counsel for Ricci Dennard in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire 

record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the 

appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire 

record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to 

withdraw is GRANTED, and Dennard’s conviction and sentence 

are AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13467 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2024 Page: 2 of 2
#### Leon G. SCHACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 50, 51.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

April 6, 1967.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1967.

Edward W. Starr, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Palm Beach County, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, James T. Carlisle, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert Jackson, Asst. State’s Atty., Vero Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Through separate informations the appellant was charged with separate offenses of using a fictitious name in the purchase of different motor vehicles on different dates contrary to the provisions of Sec. 319.33 Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The cases were consolidated for trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; sentences were pronounced; appeals were filed in each *130case, and the appeals have been consolidated here.

A study of the record discloses that there was substantial evidence to support the verdicts; the jury was fully instructed on the applicable law, and the cases were tried according to law. No error appearing, the judgments are affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., ANDREWS, J., and SMITH, D. C., Associate Judge, concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sylvester White, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered March 14, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that the jury’s verdict is repugnant is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to the verdict prior to the discharge of the jury *(see, People v Stahl,*53 NY2d 1048; *People v Almeida,*159 AD2d 508). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the verdict is not repugnant. Inasmuch as possession is not a necessary element of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree *(see,*Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), the jury’s acquittal of the defendant of the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree *(see,*Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) does not render infirm his conviction on the sale count *(see, People v Basora,*151 AD2d 588, *affd*75 NY2d 992; *People v Gaviria,*148 AD2d 630).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
----

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 December 2004

in Case T-196/03: European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

(Manifest inadmissibility - Concept of measure of individual concern to an applicant - European Economic Interest Group - Contracts being performed - Intellectual property rights)

(2005/C 69/29)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-196/03: European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, Lawyers, against European Parliament (Agents: J. L. Rufas Quintana, M. Moore and K. Bradley, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and Council of the European Union (Agents: E. Karlsson and C. Giorgi Fort), application for the annulment of:

the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.

----
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of 5V Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chi Wu, 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; 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/ Chi WuChi Wu

Principal Financial Officer

August 22, 2011