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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6178

JAMES H. LESTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TRUDY TEEL, PSY.D/TT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-97-840-R)

Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 9, 1998

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James H. Lester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Lester v. Teel, No. CA-97-840-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 28, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 391

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers men’s hockey and wrestling teams and the

University of Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs women’s hockey team for winning the 2002 NationalCollegiate Athletic Association championships.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 391

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the University of Minnesota Gophers men’s hockey

team recently won the 2002 National Collegiate Athletic

Association championship for the 4th time in the university’s history;

Whereas the Minnesota Gophers men’s hockey team had an

impressive overall record of 32–8–4;
2

•HCON 391 EH

Whereas all but 1 of the players on the Minnesota Gophers

men’s hockey team are from Minnesota;

Whereas the Minnesota Gophers wrestling team won their

second consecutive NCAA championship in 2002;

Whereas the Minnesota Gophers wrestling team was

undefeated in the 2002 season and won the Big 10 Conference tournament;

Whereas the Minnesota Gophers wrestling team finished in

the top 3 in the Nation for the 6th consecutive year;

Whereas 7 members of the Minnesota Gophers wrestling

team earned All-American honors;

Whereas the Minnesota Gophers wrestling team produced 2

individual national champions;

Whereas on March 24, 2002, the defending NCAA Women’s

Ice Hockey National Champion, the University of Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs, won the national championship

for the second straight year;

Whereas the Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs women’s hockey

team defeated Brown University in the championship

game by the score of 3–2, having previously defeated Niagara University in the semi-final by the same score;

Whereas during the 2001–2002 season, the Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs women’s hockey team won 24 games, while

losing only 6, and tying 4;

Whereas all of the players on the Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs

women’s hockey team showed tremendous dedication

throughout the season toward the goal of winning the national championship;
3

•HCON 391 EH

Whereas all 3 of these teams display academic excellence by

maintaining an average grade point average above the

university-wide average; and

Whereas Congress should honor the excellence of athletic

teams and encourage participation in collegiate athletics

in order to build teamwork and dedication: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress honors the University of Min3 nesota Golden Gophers men’s hockey and wrestling teams

4 and the University of Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs women’s

5 hockey team for winning the 2002 National Collegiate

6 Athletic Association championships.

Passed the House of Representatives April 30, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 61238 Summary Calendar

Dada Sheyi Micah; Tolulope Victoria Agbona,

Petitioners ,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General ,
Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A215 971 311 BIA No. A215 971 312

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges

.
Per Curiam : * Dada Sheyi Micah and Tolulope Victoria Agbona , native s and citizen s of Nigeria , petition for r eview of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of their

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 3, 2022
Ly le W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-61238 Document: 00516191081 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2022No. 20

- 61238

2 motion to reopen and to rescind the in absentia removal order s entered against them. The petitioners argue that the BIA and IJ abused their
discr etion by denying the motion to reopen because they demonstrated both a lack of notice and exceptional circumstances to justify reopening.

In reviewing the BIA ’s decision, we are “not permitted to consider

reasons ” for the BIA’s decision “ other than those it advanced

. ” Kwon v.
INS , 646 F.2d 909, 916 (5th Cir. 1981) . Because the BIA based its decision on the petitioners’ failure to demonstrate that they did not receive proper notice, only that issue is before us. See Kwon , 646 F.2d at 916

. When reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen, we employ “a highly
deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard” and must uphold the BIA’s decision “as long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Ojeda

- Calderon v.
Holder , 726 F.3d 669, 672 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and
citation s omitted). An in absentia removal order may be rescinded through a motion to reopen if the alien demonstrates that h e fail ed to appear because
he did not receive notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (1) and (2)

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).

Here, the petitioners admit they received a notice of hearing setting
their next hearing for January 15, 2020, but they contend that they did not receive proper notice because the immigration court’s automated phone line and court clerk erroneously informed them th at no hearing was scheduled. Because the petitioners admit that they received notice in accordance with the statutory requirements, the BIA and IJ did not abuse their discretion by denying the motion to reopen for lack of notice. See § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) ; Ojeda

- Calderon , 726 F.3d at 672 ; see also § 1229(a)(2).
Given the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED. Case: 20-61238 Document: 00516191081 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2022
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 434

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the economic collapse of

WorldCom Inc.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 27, 2002

Mr. SHOWS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Financial Services

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the economic

collapse of WorldCom Inc.

Whereas executives at WorldCom Inc. hid $3,850,000,000 in

expenses by improperly transferring certain costs to capital accounts in order to falsely portray WorldCom Inc.

as a profitable business in 2001 and the first quarter of

2002;

Whereas the economic collapse of WorldCom Inc. will cause

the layoff of thousands of WorldCom employees;

Whereas WorldCom is the second largest long distance provider in the United States, with stock that was valued at

$64 per share in June 1999;

Whereas the collapse of WorldCom and the resulting decline

in its stock price, valued at $0.21 per share on June 26,
2

•HCON 434 IH

2002, has hurt thousands of investors throughout the

United States who were misled by WorldCom’s inaccurate

financial disclosures;

Whereas Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index lowered

WorldCom’s long-term corporate credit rating to junk

status on May 10, 2002, and dropped WorldCom from its

index on May 14, 2002;

Whereas the combined downfall of Enron, WorldCom, telecommunications firm Global Crossing, and other major

corporations has seriously affected consumer confidence

in the telecommunications industry and in the integrity

of corporate transactions and reporting;

Whereas the United States Securities and Exchange Commission has already filed civil fraud charges against

WorldCom; and

Whereas the Congress has a responsibility to protect investors, workers, and innocent victims, including children

and families, from fraudulent investment practices, and

to ensure the independence of financial analysts and

auditors: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) a timely and thorough investigation should

4 be undertaken into the alleged wrongdoings related

5 to the economic collapse of WorldCom Inc.; and

6 (2) any person, including any auditor, financial

7 analyst, WorldCom executive, accounting company,

8 or other company or partnership, who is found to

9 have illegally withheld information or disseminated
3

•HCON 434 IH

1 misleading information regarding WorldCom’s finan2 cial condition should be held accountable to the full3 est extent of the law.

Æ
III 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 435 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 

Received and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the therapeutic 

technique known as rebirthing is a dangerous and harmful practice and should be prohibited. 

Whereas ‘‘rebirthing’’ is a form of ‘‘attachment therapy’’, 

which is used to try to forge new bonds between adoptive 

parents and their adopted children; 

Whereas Candace Newmaker, a child from North Carolina, 

died from the rebirthing technique, and four other children have died from other forms of attachment therapy; 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

HCON 435 RFS 

Whereas the American Psychological Association does not 

recognize rebirthing as proper treatment; and 

Whereas many States have enacted or are considering legislation to prohibit this technique: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This concurrent resolution may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Candace Newmaker Resolution of 2002’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THERAPEUTIC 

7 TECHNIQUE KNOWN AS REBIRTHING. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—It is the sense of the Congress 

9 that the therapeutic technique known as rebirthing is dan10 gerous and harmful, and the Congress encourages each 

11 State to enact a law that prohibits such technique. 

12 (b) DEFINITION.—In this resolution, the term ‘‘re13 birthing’’ means a therapy to reenact the birthing process 

14 in a manner that includes restraint and creates a situation 

15 in which a patient may suffer physical injury or death. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2002. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
file:///P|/Steam/Sampling/Plant%20Selection/Questions%20for%20Plants/Final%20Versions/Big%20Bend/New%20Text%20Document.txt[1/21/2010 9:43:44 AM]

From: Kurtis Blohm [mailto:Kurtis.Blohm@erg.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:38 PM

To: Young, Kevin A.

Cc: Hall.Josh@epamail.epa.gov; Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov; Deborah Bartram; Thomas Finseth

Subject: Follow Up Questions on Big Bend's FGD Wastewater Treatment System

Kevin,

Thank you for answering my questions regarding the Big Bend plant last week. As we discussed during the call, EPA 

would like to confirm the operation of the FGD systems and FGD wastewater treatment systems at Big Bend. This upto-date information will be used by EPA to make decisions about which plants and systems to select for the sampling 

episodes as part of the rulemaking.

I am attaching a list of follow-up questions from our call.

We would appreciate receiving responses to these questions by Friday, December 11th. As noted in the questions, 

please identify if any information should be handled as confidential business information. Please let me know if you 

have any questions. Additionally, you can contact Josh Hall via e-mail (hall.josh@epa.gov) or by phone (202-566-

1002) if you have any questions.

Thanks for your time,

Kurt

Kurt Blohm

Chemical Engineer

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

14555 Avion Pkwy, Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151

(703) 633-1675
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Haywood C. LAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79CA1183.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

June 25, 1981.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1981.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 5, 1981.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Robert C. Lehnert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, llene P. Buchalter, Suzanne Saunders, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

Defendant, Haywood C. Lawson, appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, alleging that no sentence had been pronounced at the sentencing hearing. We disagree and therefore affirm.

On November 15, 1974, defendant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder. He waived his right to a penalty hearing by the jury. On January 6, 1975, a sentencing hearing was held after which the trial court issued a formal written judgment of conviction, sentence, and mittimus, which was signed on the same day.

On August 24, 1979, defendant filed his motion for post-conviction relief under the then applicable provisions of Crim.P. 35(b). The trial court denied the motion, finding that the sentencing at the January 6 hearing had been sufficient. The court then stated that if it were necessary to make a formal statement of the sentence, it would do so then. Thereupon, the court made formal pronouncement *nunc pro tunc*January 6, 1975.

We agree with the trial court that the sentencing at the January 6 hearing was sufficient. There can be no doubt that the trial judge intended to impose sentence. At the hearing, it was conceded by both parties in open court that a life sentence was the only sentence permissible under the circumstances of the case. The only remaining issue to be determined was whether the life sentence was to be served concurrently with or consecutively to sentences previously imposed upon the defendant in other trials. These were the only issues addressed by counsel.

*1020Upon completion of the arguments, the defendant exercised his rights of allocution. *See*Crim.P. 32(b). The trial court then indicated an intention to pronounce sentence and, following some prefacing comments on sentence considerations, stated that:

> “I am convinced more than ever that my primary duty to society is to impose the maximum sentence that it is in my power to impose.”

The defendant then asked a question of the judge, and following his answer, the trial judge announced that:

> “I just feel that the sentence should be consecutive and not concurrent.”

Under these circumstances, we hold that the sentence was sufficiently pronounced at the January 6, 1975, hearing.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

BERMAN and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 10.4(e)


                                     -------------------------------------------
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN                          AMENDMENT NO. 4
             OF
     WAKE FOREST FEDERAL             DOCUMENT:             WA01/3147549
 SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION          DRAFT DATE:           08/02/05

 Adopted on December 6, 1995         BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Effective on April 3, 1996          APPROVAL DATE:        AUGUST 15, 2005
                                                           --------------------

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

                                    AMENDMENT

1.       ARTICLE XIII - Section 13.4(c) of the Plan shall be amended, effective
         as of March 28, 2005, to read in its entirety as follows:

                  If an Employee terminates service, and the value of the
         Employee's vested Account balance is not greater than $1,000, the
         Employee will receive a distribution of the value of the entire vested
         portion of such Account balance and the nonvested portion will be
         treated as a Forfeiture. If an Employee would have received a
         distribution under the preceding sentence but for the fact that the
         Employee's vested Account balance exceeded $1,000 when the Employee
         terminated Service and if at a later time such Account balance is
         reduced such that it is not greater than $1,000, the Employee will
         receive a distribution of such Account balance and the nonvested
         portion will be treated as a Forfeiture. For purposes, of this section,
         if the value of an Employee's vested Account balance is zero, the
         Employee shall be deemed to have received a distribution of such vested
         Account balance.


                           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed
by the undersigned officer of Wake Forest Federal Savings & Loan Association
pursuant to authority given by resolution of the Board of Directors.


                                     WAKE FOREST FEDERAL
                                     SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION



                                     By: /s/ Robert C. White
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Name:  Robert C. White
                                         Title: President
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 51142 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JCONCEPCION ALONSO

- TOBAR , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 563

- 1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jconcepcion Alonso

- Tobar appeals the 46

- month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to being found unlawfully present in the United States after previous removal . He argues that his sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b ). Specifically, he contends that in order to trigger a sentencing enhancement under Section 1326(b), the fact of a prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and proven to a jury;

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 12, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-51142 Document: 00515413479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2020No. 19

- 51142

2 therefore, he asserts that Section 1326(b) is unconstitutional. H e correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but raises the issue to preserve it for further possible review. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

– 26 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. Because th e issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. S ee Groendyke Transp., Inc.
v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
T he Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED ; the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time t o file a brief is
DENIED . T he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-51142 Document: 00515413479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, 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 Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2021-A (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany 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 amresponsible 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 asdisclosed 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 onassessment 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 thefollowing unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association 

Date: June 29, 2023 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC(senior officer in charge of theservicing function)
 
8 

**