alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1002

VICTORIA MINDI AMBA, Petitioner,
versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-219-544) Submitted: July 16, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Victoria Mindi Amba, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In her petition for review, Amba contends that she established her eligibility for asylum relief. The record reveals, however, that the Board upheld the immigration judge’s denial of asylum relief on the ground that Amba failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she filed her application within one year of the date of her arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2 000). See Castel lano-Chacon v. INS , 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir. 2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft , 338 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3d Cir. 2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen. , 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 2002); Hakeem v. INS , 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001); Ismailov v. Reno , 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Amba’s asylum claim. While we do not have jurisdiction to consider the Board’s denial of Amba’s asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider- 3 - the denial of her request for withholding of removal, which is not subject to the one-year time limitation. See8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that Amba has failed to meet this standard. Accordingly, we deny Amba’s petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 23.1**
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No.333-60207) pertaining to the Supplemental Retirement and SavingsPlan, the Stock Option Plan, and the Employee Equity Purchase Plan of UnitedDefense Industries, Inc. of our report dated January 28, 2002, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedules of United DefenseIndustries, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2001.
/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
McLean, Virginia
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 22-0005 

IN RE THE MOTION OF RYAN G. RUPE FOR 

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA 

ORDER 

r) rr‘r 4

-44

Ryan G. Rupe has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Rupe has provided the necessary documentation 

and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Ryan G. Rupe may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this j day of November, 2022. 

1 / 

Chief Justi e 

e 

NOV 0 1 2022 

CLIESpvven Greenwood c. 

State 

1,< of Supreme CoLI" of Montana

11/01/2022

Case Number: PR 22-0005
e9-3f 'Aft& 

Justices
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 22997.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 3, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1945.

Eugene F. Mathis, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; punishment assessed, six months in the county jail.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-129-000 (Phase II)]


Trunkline Gas Company; Notice of Informal Settlement Conference

October 18, 2000.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in these proceedings on November 1, 2000 commencing at 10:00 a.m. at 
the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the 
possible settlement of the issues in this proceeding.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, contact Marc G. Denkinger (202) 208-
2215 or Lorna J. Hadlock (202) 208-0737.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27274 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications



I, Albert J. Wood, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PalmSource, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PalmSource, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 20, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/    ALBERT J.
WOOD                               
|                      |  |     |  | Albert J. Wood Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Movie Star, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company. |

|                      |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------|--|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: May 10 , 2007 |  |  | /s/ Melvyn Knigin                                                            Melvyn KniginChief Executive Officer                                |
| Dated: May 10, 2007  |  |  | /s/ Thomas Rende                                                            Thomas RendeChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |
|                      |

----
14910.13-PI e, <. '1"''''''-'''

,,,,. ,',",.'"

14 C"frR Part 3!J

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Fed~r.al Aviation Administration

{)/1'b

[Docket No. l"AA_2010_HH1I'; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-O.J9-AD;

I/_Z.:Z'-l -OfJ-ILj

Amendment :.V)-,,~•••; AD 2010-*"'-**1

RIN 2120-AAM

Airworthines8 Directives; Bombardier, Tnc.Model CL-oOQ·2BI9 (Regionl:ll Jel Series

100 & 440) I\irplnncg

AGENCY: Feder:a.l.t\viallon Administration (FAA), Department ofTwnsportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY; We are adopting <lnew airworthiness diredive (AD) rOJ'the product:; 1i5ted CC~ ,..,,,

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl)

originated hy an aviation amhority of ,mother CQunuy to identify nnd correct an unsafe

conditi~m on an aviation product. The MeAl dcscribc$ the UTt."afe condition as:

The manufacturer has informed Traosport Canada that, a ccrL.,in number ()f

the resolver st:1tors, which were installed in tbe ADA (angle of attackl

trnnsducers. were not cleaned ~oITectly, Thi$ condition call degmoe the

/l.OA transducer pClfoollanee allow tempemture-.5 resulting in frccz.ing of

the AOA transducer resolver. which may provide inaccurate AOA data {et

(he Stall ProtL'Ctioll System (SPS)_ If not corrected, this condition can

result in early or late activation of the stick shakcr and/or sljck plJsher.

rhis AD requires actions thal arc intended to address the unsafe condition described in

the MeAl,

I

,J

\ \

z.. ~ to

"""M" ",,",

AUN\ -(0 I
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 this accompanying Quarterly Report of Tech Laboratories, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, , I,
Bernard Ciongoli, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended March 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Tech Laboratories, Inc.


/s/ Bernard Ciongoli
--------------------
Bernard Ciongoli
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
WESLEY CARROLL, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED**MA;~** 

## ? 42009 NANCYMAYERWHITTINGTON. CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT

v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 09-0076 (UNA) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION Under the Prison Litigation Refonn Act ("PLRA"), a prisoner maynot proceed informa pauperis ifwhile incarcerated he has filed at least three prior cases that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.c. 

### § 1915(g); seeIbrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 1033 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Smith v. District of Columbia, 182 F.3d 25,29 (D.C. Cir. 1999). There is
an exception for a prisoner who shows that he "is under imminent danger ofserious physical injury" at the time he files suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiffis not eligible to proceed informa pauperis because he has accumulated more than "three strikes" for purposes ofthe PLRA. See, e.g., Carroll v. Clerk of Court, No. 08-1684,2009 WL 112546, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 15,2009) (denying motion for leave to proceed informapauperis under 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g) and dismissing complaint without prejudice to re-filing after payment ofthe filing fee). Moreover, review ofthe complaint reveals that plaintiffbrings this action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Freedom ofInfonnation Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552, and nothing in the pleading suggests that plaintiffis in imminent danger ofserious physical injury. Absent such anallegation, plaintiffdoes not overcome the bar imposed by Section 1915(g). Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiffs motion to proceed informapauperis and dismisses this action under 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g).

DATE:

# ~ 2..

# ~/ 2tJo

# i
#### Wagner et al., Appellants, *v.*Messner, Aud., et al. Appellees.

(No. 27900

Decided April 24, 1940.)

*515
      *Messrs. Emerson, Robinson é McGee,*for appellants.

*Mr. J. Ewing Smith,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Láveme C. Atha,*for appellees.

By the Court.

The principal question of law involved is stated by counsel for plaintiffs, appellants herein, as follows:

> “Where a property owner did not avail himself of his statutory remedies, is he barred from seeking to enjoin, under Section 12075 of the General Code, the collection of assessments for the construction of a sanitary sewer, the proceedings for which were properly had and notice given before the improvement was made, *when the circumstances are such that the improvement was not and cannot be of any benefit to his land?”*(Italics ours.)

The Court of Appeals relied upon the case of *City of Cuyahoga Falls,*v. *Beck,*110 Ohio St., 82, 143 N. E., 861, and found that “the appellants and their predecessors in title had due and legal notice of the improvement and tentative assessments in controversy prior to the construction of the improvement and an opportunity to be heard in opposition or defense thereto, comprehending a full, complete and adequate *516remedy at law for all the matters complained of in the amended petition herein, under the provisions of the sections of the General'Code of Ohio authorizing said improvement and assessments, of which they failed to avail themselves, and that the said appellants thereby waived the right to question the assessments in a court of equity under the provisions of Section,12075 of the General Code of Ohio.” No finding was made by the Court of Appeals on the question whether the lands of plaintiffs received a benefit from the present sewer construction.

The same fundamental principle, applicable to failure to pursue statutory remedies after notice, was enunciated also in *Bashore*v. *Brown, Treas.,*108 Ohio St., 18, 140 N. E., 489, and *Hammond, Treas.,*v. *Winder, Beer.,*112 Ohio St., 158, 147 N. E., 94.

The facts in the *Falor case, supra,*with reference to notice to the property owner, are readily distinguishable from those of the case at bar inasmuch as notice is here conceded.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Williams and Myers, JJ., dissent.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3095 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3095

    To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the 
 screening, testing, or treatment of individuals operating commercial 
motor vehicles for sleep disorders is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking 
                  proceeding, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2013

Mr. Bucshon (for himself, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Radel, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. 
Young of Alaska, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Meehan, and Mr. 
 Southerland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the 
 screening, testing, or treatment of individuals operating commercial 
motor vehicles for sleep disorders is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking 
                  proceeding, 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. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 
              SLEEP DISORDERS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may implement or 
enforce a requirement providing for the screening, testing, or 
treatment (including consideration of all possible treatment 
alternatives) of individuals operating commercial motor vehicles for 
sleep disorders only if the requirement is adopted pursuant to a 
rulemaking proceeding.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a requirement 
that was in force before September 1, 2013.
    (c) Sleep Disorders Defined.--In this section, the term ``sleep 
disorders'' includes obstructive sleep apnea.
                                 <all>
```