alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60473

Summary Calendar

 

CHEN ZHENG,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A71-984-803

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chen Zheng (Zheng) has filed a petition for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his appeal of an

immigration judge’s denial of a motion to reopen his immigration

proceedings. Zheng argues that his circumstances have changed

since his deportation order was issued in 1994 and that the

immigration judge erroneously denied relief pursuant to the

immigration regulations implementing the Convention Against

Torture.
2

To succeed in his motion to reopen, Zheng was required to set

forth a prima facie case of his entitlement to relief. See

Pritchett v. I.N.S., 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993). Zheng does

not provide citations to or discuss the many applicable regulations

with which he was required to comply to obtain relief pursuant to

the Convention Against Torture, nor does he provide record

citations that indicate that he did in fact comply with the

considerable filing requirements set forth in the regulations.

Zheng also does not dispute the specific reasons underlying the

immigration judge’s conclusion that Zheng had failed to set forth

a prima facie case of his entitlement to relief. Therefore, Zheng

has failed to show that the immigration judge’s decision was an

abuse of discretion. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th

Cir. 2000).

Zheng’s reliance in his motion to reopen on In re X-G-W, 22 I.

& N. Dec. 71 (BIA 1998) also does not warrant a reversal of the BIA

decision, although the immigration judge did not specifically

address the applicability of this decision to Zheng’s case. In In

re X-G-W the BIA announced a policy of granting untimely motions to

reopen by certain applicants claiming eligibility for asylum based

on coercive population control policies. Though the policy

announced in In re X-G-W was subsequently reversed in In re G-C-L,

23 I. & N. Dec. 359, 359 (BIA 2002), Zheng’s motion to reopen was

arguably timely pursuant to In re X-G-W. However, even under the

policy announced in In re X-G-W, 22 I. & N. Dec. 71 at 4, the
3

movant seeking reopening of a prior deportation proceeding had to

meet certain prerequisites before reopening would be granted, and

Zheng has not met those prerequisites.

Accordingly, Zheng’s petition for review is DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

      ( print page 10483)    

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 5, 2015.

# PLACE:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Pocahontas Coal Co., LLC.*                         v.                         *Secretary of Labor,*                         Docket No. WEVA 2014-202-R; and                         *Pocahontas Coal Co., LLC*                         v.                         *Secretary of Labor,*                         Docket Nos. WEVA 2014-642-R, et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judges erred in ruling that they lacked jurisdiction to review a Notice of Pattern of Violations and a Notice of Safeguard, respectively.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Sarah Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2015-04080 Filed 2-24-15; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
# CE2004088EN.01027801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/278 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/278

---

(2004/C 88 E/0283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Cockle and mussel fishermen

Subject:

Could the Commission confirm if cockle and mussel fishermen in Northern Ireland receive EU subsidies? If so, please could the Commission give details on the amount of these subsidies and how they were obtained?

Would cockle and mussel fishermen in Boston in the East Midlands region also be eligible for such subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

The Commission can confirm that no funding has been made available to cockle and mussel fishermen in Northern-Ireland. They could, however, indirectly benefit from aid for port facilities and apply for vessel modernisation to improve quality. Shellfish processors may also benefit from aid for the processing, marketing and promotion of shellfish products. Through the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) funded aquaculture schemes, eligible shellfish cultivation projects have received funding in the past.

For Boston, the same range of grants is available under the FIFG to cockle and mussel fishermen i.e. aid for port facilities, for vessel modernisation to improve quality, and for the processing, marketing and promotion of shellfish products. For assistance to be provided, however, the relevant managing authority needs to include these measures in its programme.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          29,920                  15,160
<SECURITIES>                                   100,851                   7,128
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,351                  24,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                       869                   2,917
<INVENTORY>                                          0                     890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,784                  45,302
<PP&E>                                          30,525                  40,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,741                  35,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,450                  56,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,341                  35,053
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       3
<COMMON>                                           248                     208
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,119                  18,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,450                  56,210
<SALES>                                         45,798                  27,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,798                  27,833
<CGS>                                           24,684                  14,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,538                  40,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,772                   1,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 100                     122
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,932                (11,358)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (22,292)                     573
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,224                (11,931)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,925                  13,046
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,149                   1,115
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.33                    0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11                    0.06


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.10

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

As independent accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
of our report,  dated March 8, 1996 on the financial  statements of Cabodinamica
TV Cabo de Sao Paulo S.A.  as of and for the years ended  December  31, 1994 and
1995  included  in this  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K,  into  previously  filed
Registration Statement File Nos. 33-81876, 33-87326 and 333-00226.


                                       Price Waterhouse


Auditores Independentes
Sao Paulo, Brazil
May 25, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,082,238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,220,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                   312,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,854,548
<PP&E>                                         648,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,321,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,742,794
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,129
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,515,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,321,658
<SALES>                                     17,549,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,549,621
<CGS>                                        9,840,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,571,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,101,766
<INCOME-TAX>                                   172,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,929,766
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,929,766
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

</TABLE>
l. 

I, 

16 lovember 1954 

StIBJEC'l's :Reriiew ot "o6411 Operation in :mOD 

1. SeYorc.l y..:aar& have ~ne~ e1uce the unit currently designated 

as the Technical 8'J.ppo:i:'t Group 1n PEOD {NSA-o6l~) vo.s eatablished. It 

is possible that the :ree.eons vh:lah wre then deeDlld auttiaient to 

'W.rrant the eata.b11ellrOO'nt or such e. grou};' are no lo13ger appl1ce.ble, 

a.l1d. tb.e.t tho basis f'or the continue.uce of: tr.o grourJ_, ~nm the Dl(l.tter 

:ta considered. .tro.11 th<: viQYtX>!nt Qf cl'f"icittnc;y in ~btration as 

veil as in techn.i~a.l epera:tions, no longer exists. 

2. !t is therefore sugested that tho D/D PROD be rcqueatOO. to 

rcviav tho sii.u.u:tioii vitll raa;ect to NSA.·061~ in ccll.aborntion l-ritb. the 

Chief', Personnel Division and 'PQrhaps 8.l.eo Yi.th the Comptroller, vith 

a view- to (l) ascert.e.inina the advantages ~ diaadYantages or continuing 

the existence of the Technical Suppo,1.""t Orou~, ar.id (2) it contitlua11cft ie 

1m.rra.nted.. r.nking appropriate reco~ndationa 1n the premises / 1nclud.1tJS, 

if deemed a.dvi;o.bleJ X'CCQil!!!lendatit-na for cbe.nge8 :ln the p:ra~nt &rrarJS8-

ments relative to that Group. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-09-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352\3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0209

_________________

CLARKSTON FIRE SERVICE AREA #6,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

DAWN DAVIS LEMIEUX, STEVEN LEMIEUX

and TRACY ELLEN SHAW, and MONTANA

COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION,

 Defendants and Appellants.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Dawn Davis Lemieux, to all counsel 

of record, and to the Honorable Peter B. Ohman, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 19 2022

10/19/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0209
,..·. ·-.. 

REF ID:A44464 

• &;:\ !'·'~ -;-:.. ~ \"'-' ; I 'i _:' I ! l: I I )fl " .... ·~ ,1 

' I • • I : • ' ~ ~ l 

~!l~Ll· h 

CONClRESS OF TBE UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE 

WASHING'l'ON., D. C. 

January 191 1961 

Vice Admiral. Laurence H. Frost, USN 

Director 

National Security Agency 

Fort Meade, Maryland 

Dear Admiral Frost: 

• 

It is requested tbat serious consideration be given by you, in 

your capacity as Director of the National Security ~ency, to declare 

Administrative leave for the employees of ;your Agency for tomorrow, 

Inaugural. Day, January 20. 

I realize that Public Law 85-1 does not authorize a legal holiday 

for employees whose Agency is located in Anne Arundel County 1 However 1 

I believe there are several com,pelling reasons for you to exercise your 

discretion in this matter by granting Aarninistrative leave. 

In 19571 when Public Law 85-1 was enacted, the National Security 

Agency had not been relocated from Arlington County to Anne Arundel 

County, I am advised that approximately 40 percent of the employees 

of the Agency still commute from Arlington to Fort Meade. This matter 

has been discussed informally with representatives of the District of 

Columbia Camnissioners, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the 

Inaugural Canmittee. It is felt strongly that if such leave is not 

granted, a serious traffic condition will exist, both during the morning 

and evening hours. This i's particularly true in view of the inclement 

weather forecast for late today and early tanorrow morning. In view of 

the foregoing, I believe that a favorable decision by you would be welcaned 

not only by the employees themselves, but would contribute significantly 

to a smooth and orderly handling of unprecedented crowds tanorrow. 

With kind regards, I am 

Sincerely yours, 

/s/ RICHARD B. LANKFORD 

Richard E. La.Dkf'ord, M. c. 

REL:sa 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 10-23-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
COPY 

REF ID:A517381 

TOP SECRET 

'OP SPB~P 3.3(h) (2) 

' S6~J6/50 USC 3605 

JUN B 1951 

MEMORANDUM F©.R THE EXEClJTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL S~URITY 

COUNCIL: 

Subject: .___ _ __.I COIIllilUllicati<:>n ~curity. 

Enclosure: Fil')al Report of the U .S.,r---,Gc>nf·· ..e. rence 

onJ !Communication Securtt1~ 

recen:lf ::~·:·::;::·: :::a::~=~::::·:~ t::·::J 

States Communications\Intelligence Board.(USCIB) and its 

British counterpart, tbe London Signal Intelligence Board 

(LSIB). 

2. With a view to possible improvement of this situation. • especiallv as it nerta.. ins to the security oft I I USCIB and lSIB representatives 

have met and agreed upon a detailed method of approach to I I high-level authorities, to be implemented when the 

two Boards mentioned above deem it advisable, after approval 

by the appropriate authorities\of the two Governments. However, the results of Tripartite I I General 

Security discussions, now in progress, are to be considered 

by the two Boards before any implementing action is undertaken. 

J. The report of the USGIB-LSIB representatives is 

forwarded herewith (Enclosure) for approval by the National 

Security Council. With reference to paragraph 4e, page 4 

of this Enclosure, USCIB has agreed that the U.S. part. of 

the sixty additional Combined Cipher Machines (CCM) to be 

provided would be furnished when practicable with due consideration of U.S. National requirements, and other prior 

international conmitments. 

4. In view of the sensitive nature and importance of 

this matter and the possible international complications 

resulting from the proposed action, the handling and distribution of the Enclosure is considered to warrant special 

consideration. 

WALTER B. SMITH 

Chairman, United States Communications Intelligence Board. 

!OB SEQRi.'!f 

TOP SECRET Decl~ssified and approved for release by NSA on 09-24 2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

' 

\
' 
•. 

IEIO ROUTlllB SLIP 

I llAlll aa '1111.1 llmALll aRCll.A11 

.,. CIXmlllllA'IDI 

I .... 

malllA'nClll 

a BmllRY 

M:lllll 

llRI AllD 

-- • --

_,.. . 

FllDll llAlll Clll 

DD ... 95 ~DA.AOOl'sm-1411'411,llllll.uaQ I FEI 10 l'clilll U.11.ll"ft'•, wldall 11111' liil mlll. ·-·- . ~ 
TO :BSA-30 . DA TE: 9 :November 1954 

FROM ·RSA-31 

SUBJECT:caaments OD Skellett's Coding azul Decoding Machine 

· Mr. Skellett • s proposed machine is cryptographical.l;r the equivalent of 

"twisting" the rotors in a maze (1.e., displacing the right contact face of 

each rotor vi th respect to the left face) rather than stepping each rotor aa 

a unit in which the relaticmship between the input and output contact points 

remains fixed. 'l'heoretical.q, this principle has acne attractiJre possibilities 

and this particular approach is one which wa have never considered in the cleaip 

ot cryptographic equipnent. The basic principle, however 1 is very- similar to 

one of the proposals for BD alphabet generator ( electron:ic rotor) vbich is 

current:q u:nc!er investigation. As to this particular embodiment·, it appears 

that plain text radiation migbt be a serious problem and ve believe that there 

are better V8¥S ot accm:pliahing the same, or an equivalent result. The 

suggestion is appreciated, however 1 azul a cop;y ot Mr. Skellett •a paper baa 

been made for the Division• s tiles. 

t!SECRET 

.,,..) ./) ... t;..P. o ... . ...... 

.1 J.R. 

,,,\ 

CHILES ~ 

, / Ass't Chief, C"mmunicatlon • &ti:urlty Equipment Division
Order entered January 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00833-CR

No. 05-14-00834-CR

MALCOLM MCCLENON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-54585-W, F13-54586-W

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On January 15, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. On January 29, 2015, we received appellant’s brief, together 

with an extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE the 

January 15, 2015 order requiring findings.

We GRANT the January 29, 2015 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed 

as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
- --= ... - ... _i..:.... ..-.-

REF ID:A64694 

Mr. William J. Mitchel, President 

.AClD9 Code Company I Inc• ' 

507 Weat 33d. Street 

Ne11 York 11 Nev York 

Dear lillt 

310 Second Street, 8.E. 

Washington J, D, c. 

RB September 1954 

Mo.ny the.nka tor your note o£ 24 Septeniber., with its 

nice enclosure11 You ve:re certainly prompt .. 

l -.lBO he.YQ to thank ¥OU :f'or your letter or u September, witten from hollle. The catalogs you aent ma are intei-el!Jtilllt 

and al.110 the letter pertaining thereto. Aa soon ae I have 

CIQQ:le tree till» I'll J.ook the literature aver very caret'ully. 

Don't forget to ca.11 me the Xl48Xt tilne ;you're in 

Washi?Jgton. 

Sincerely, 

@'pproved for Release bv NSA on 07-17-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352\3 

.,_ 

~~ 

I,.,. •