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

"" 

·· ... 

(4-28-32) 2nd Mano. Ind. 

~I 

,. 6 

· GAG:d 

Hq.,Sig.C.Labs.,Ft.Monniouth,N.J. Ma.y 3, 1932~ To: Chief Signal Officer, 

·War Dep\., Washington, D.C. TBBU OIO, Signal Corps Laboratories. 

l. The remarks ·or t·he bas,_c letter are concurred in. 

k~IZ.l\&ni· IUVl 

Chief, Wire sect ion 

Iucls. no change 

(4-~-32) 3rd Memo. Ind. WRB:d 

Hq.,Sig.C.Labs.,l't.Monmouth,N.J. Ma.1 3, 1932. ~: Chief Signal Officer, 

War Dept., WS.sh1ngton, D.C., 

MaJ or, Signal Corps 

Officer in Charge 

CONFIDENTIAL 

-2-

Peclassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-20-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352§ 
.... . ..... 

IN REPLY 

REFER TO 

·, -e····-· .... '"~:.. 22 . • y.-....... · ....... ....:..! ·--~"· •• ·- • 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF THE CH1lfPs1GNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 

April 28, 1932. 

MEMORANDUM FOR1 Mr. Graham THROUGH -Research and Development 

Division. 

1. In forwarding the enclosed, the following comments 

are made1 

Enc. 

a. The· numeral ''l" will be added to the drawing. 'tf1.., 

b. It is believed that the validi~,Y." of the con- -:\" 

flicts with Howland can be combatted, as fP'.. 

regards Claims l-3, and 33. 

c. 

d. 

Claim 18 appears met by Wheeler, as cited, 

and can be withdrawn. 

Claim 24 may be withdrawn as unimportant. 

~-

e. Claims 40 to 50 may be withdrawn on grounds c..taLL ............ ..-..:. 

cited. -s .... -r~.- -.~~ '"f ~-~ 

~ --. ~ 1-Wo- "" t.i~· ~ ct",,_,___ • 

2. Your comments on the foregoing are desired. ~ ~ .~' 

~~e.~ William F. Friedma ... .L- .. ~ 

Specii'icat ions 

1st Memo.Ind. eve/gab 

Research & Development Division, OCSigO. Washington. April 29, 1952. 

To: Mr. ··George A. Graham, Signal Corps Laboratories, Fort Monmouth, N. J. 

1. It is requested that your comments relative to this matter be 

returned through this office •. 

By order of the Acting Chief Signal Officer: 

Incl. no change. ~~t;~.,..~-. ~
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

VARATHARAJAH SIVASAMBO,

Petitioner,

v. No. 99-1306

JANET RENO,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A75-413-647)

Submitted: August 17, 1999

Decided: September 24, 1999

Before ERVIN,* HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, LAW OFFICE OF VISUVANATHAN

RUDRAKUMARAN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. David

W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford,

Senior Litigation Counsel, Michelle E. Gorden, Office of Immigration

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

_________________________________________________________________

*Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died

prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum

of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Varatharajah Sivasambo seeks a review of the decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying relief on his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board's determination that Sivasambo is not eligible for asylum must be upheld unless

that determination is "manifestly contrary to law." See 8 U.S.C.A.

§ 1252(b)(4)(C) (West 1999). The Board concluded that Sivasambo

failed to meet his burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecution on account of protected grounds if he were returned to Sri Lanka.

Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is without reversible error.

The abuse suffered by Sivasambo while detained by the Sri Lankan

police does not form a sufficient basis for a grant of asylum arising

solely from the severity of past persecution. See Baka v. INS, 963

F.2d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir. 1992) (quoting Rivera-Cruz v. INS, 948

F.2d 962, 969 (5th Cir. 1991)) (holding that to establish such eligibility, an alien must show past persecution so severe that repatriation

would be inhumane). Furthermore, Sivasambo failed to establish that

he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of protected grounds if he is returned to Sri Lanka. Because Sivasambo did

not establish eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding removal. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S.

421, 430-32 (1987).

Accordingly, we affirm. 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

 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50472

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REYNALDO LEOS GALINDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

 ***************************

___________________

No. 96-50559

Summary Calendar

 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANK MATHIS; TROY MATHIS,

 Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC Nos. SA-95-CR-148-4 & SA-95-CR-148-6

- - - - - - - - - -

December 19, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 96-50472 & 96-50559

-2-

* 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.

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Leos Galindo, Frank Mathis, and Troy Mathis were

charged in a superseding indictment, along with nine other

individuals, for various drug offenses. After their motions to

suppress wiretap evidence were denied, Galindo entered a

conditional guilty plea to count 2 of a superseding indictment,

which charged him with possession of cocaine with intent to

distribute and aiding and abetting; Frank Mathis entered a

conditional guilty plea to a superseding information, which

charged him with possession of cocaine base with intent to

distribute; and Troy Mathis entered a conditional guilty plea to

a superseding information, which charged him with use of a

communication device to facilitate a drug trafficking felony. 

The orders authorizing the wiretaps in this case were

predicated upon representations in affidavits of Drug Enforcement

Administration Special Agent William Furay. Appellants argue

that the affidavits contain false statements of fact and were

based upon stale information. Considering the totality of the

circumstances and the lack of corroborating information in the

affidavits, they argue, the affidavits failed to establish that

there was probable cause for the wiretaps. Appellants contend

that the affidavits failed to establish the necessity of the

proposed wiretaps. Appellants contend that the applications and
Nos. 96-50472 & 96-50559

-3-

supporting documents were technically deficient. Appellants

contend that interception of communications continued after the

expiration of the authorized period. Appellants contend that

this requirement was violated in two instances. Appellants

contend that the Government continued to intercept communications

long after the achievement of its objectives. Finally,

appellants contend that the cumulative effect of the errors and

violations in obtaining and executing the wiretap orders required

suppression of the wiretap evidence. 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record. 

Essentially for reasons stated by the district court, see United

States v. Mathis et al., No. SA-95-CR-148 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22,

1996), we hold that the district court did not err in refusing to

suppress the wiretap evidence. The judgments are 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                        (60,937)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  209,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,684
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               156,228
<PP&E>                                       1,085,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                (92,925)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,148,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          234,034
<BONDS>                                        559,817
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,050
<COMMON>                                       296,403
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,148,707
<SALES>                                        451,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               451,144
<CGS>                                          118,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               237,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,203
<INCOME-TAX>                                       000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    87,203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.003
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.003
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1









         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
         Statements (No.  33-88268,  No. 33-95256 and No.  33-97250) of Uniroyal
         Technology  Corporation  on Form S-8 of our reports dated  December 20,
         1999,  appearing  in  the  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  Uniroyal
         Technology Corporation for the year ended September 26, 1999.


         DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


         Tampa, Florida
         December 23, 1999
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 22, 2019 p0522

Order 

Clerk

May 22, 2019

158171

TOWNSHIP OF WILLIAMSTOWN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158171

COA: 337469

Ingham CC: 15-000570-CZ

SANDALWOOD RANCH, LLC, ALEC

KOLENDA, and SARAH KOLENDA,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

LOVE ADVERTISING, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Jacobs, Respondent, vs. Beebe, Appellant.

*February 6*

*February 23, 1897.*

*Appealable order.*

An order striking out a demurrer as being frivolous is not the same as one overruling a demurrer, within the meaning of ch. 212, Laws of 1895, and hence it is not appealable, even when made by the court. An order refusing to vacate a chamber order is not appeal-able unless the original order would have been appealable if made by the court.

*390Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Dane county: R. Gr. Siebeckee, Circuit Judge.

*Appeal dismissed.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *BushneTl, Rogers '<& Hall*and *G. 8. Martin,*and a brief in reply and oral argument by A. *R. BushneTl.*

*Chas. JSF. Brown,*for the respondent.

Wikslow, J.

Upon motion made at chambers to strike out the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint as frivolous, an order was made striking out the demurrer, with costs, and requiring an answer to be served within five days. Motion was thereupon made before the court to set aside the order made at chambers, but it was denied, and the defendant appealed from the last-named order.

The appeal must be dismissed, because the order is not ap-pealable under ch. 212, Laws of 1895. An order striking out a demurrer as frivolous is not an order overruling a demurrer, within the meaning of that chapter, and hence is not appealable. *Gianella v. Bigelow,*92 Wis. 267. Such an order not being appealable tfhen made by the court, it follows that an order refusing to vacate it is not appealable. Orders refusing to vacate chamber orders are only appeal-able when the original order would have been appealable if made by the court. Subd. *é,*sec. 1, ch. 212, *supra.*

*By the Cov/rt.*— Appeal dismissed.
Order entered February 7, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 12
- 01073
- CR
ADA BETTY CUADROS
- FERNANDEZ , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 80933
- 06 

### O RDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s February 4, 2013 motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.
We ORDER appellant to file the brief within FIFTEEN DAYS from the date of this
order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHI EF JUSTICE
• REF ID:~~S 

OLD FOLD CLOSE, . MONKEN HADLEY, 

HER TS. 

TEL. BARN ET 0274. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-15-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
---i 

RE~ID:A68865.A 

.::~~-_,. 

- - ,. .. t_ ....... -- __ ·-· _, 

-

"-; _: - ""'w : .. • • : .... ,- .... 

.:·. '"'""• ••• ,.r 

. 

. .. 

~ ~ -...-,.1 ~ y~,.~~,,; 

.& ,,<,._., .-....( 1 ~ ~ 

"- ~ ~cr,_,. 

----- j--/w-1t--y...-- -., "' r. -fi-;j.; 

~ He. ~ .... n-~ 7~ 

. - ~,.,.. a,.....A ~ A(.: H-1.c....-. ,~~c. ~ 

~ ~,_.;~ ~,._ -·-' ~ ~ 

.J-. ... -·- ..... .... -.., y'-1 po_:-..-. 

~ 

v~ ~~"/ 

C. c~)
.. -

Electrcmit!a 

Dr:~ Richard C. 

Divia1on ~ 

!be B&n4 Coz:poi•at1cn 

1700 Ilda street 

lul;ta b1ca, r..11toni1a 

IM.x' DJ"., ~t 

-

tt.ceipt ot 10'Jl' lettu ot 21 October 1953 nth s.w 

t.ncl osed JlA.1ID Jtesearch Memo:ranaa a aemovle4pd. 

emee I i.ve been out or tcnm, the •tter baa onJ¥ 

ncwtl:r Mou 'l:rro\1ght to., attention. neuo accept 

Ill' qprac:tat1on tor Nrtd.ina t.be documente. 

I &he.ll 'be hapw to eee )"OU 4ur1D8 )'OUl" a,pected 

Yielit 'to Vaahington cm 7 Gr U Decenbn". 

MJ 

c/s 

B/ASST (Mr. Friedmn) 

11.ncerel.1", 

I& ~t~~,w 1~~, 

VI1UAM 'I. nt.li1Ji1AK 

lpedal .baiatant 

M/R; Acknowledgement o~ receipt 6~ RAND Research Memoranda. a.nd 

Dr. Raymond'• proposed visit to Washington 1 or ll Dec. at which 

time he would like to see Mr. Friedman. 

IDr!oung/S/M3ST/6o493/30 Nov 53 

_ @'pp roved '._c?_r Release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352a __________ _
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMMAD KHALEEL AL BATTAT,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70500

Agency No. A079-638-403

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 14, 2016**

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit 

Judges.

Mohammad Khaleel Al Battat, a native of Palestine and citizen of Jordan, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, 

 

* 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).

FILED

NOV 16 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the Convention Against 

Torture (“CAT”), as well as his petition for special rule cancellation of removal 

pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. We have jurisdiction under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition. 

1. The BIA held that Al Battat failed to appeal the merits of the IJ’s 

determinations that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT 

relief, and that his asylum claim was time-barred. On appeal, Al Battat concedes 

that his asylum claim was time-barred, and he offers no challenge to the BIA’s 

determination that any arguments about withholding of removal or CAT relief

were not preserved for appeal. Any arguments related to those forms of relief are 

thus unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See Alvarado v. 

Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). 

2. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Al Battat failed to 

corroborate his claim of spousal mental abuse and, therefore, affirmed denial of his 

application for special rule cancellation of removal. Al Battat does not argue that 

such corroboration was unnecessary; he states only that he does not know why the 

requested corroboration was unavailable. Al Battat has thus failed to demonstrate 

that the record compels the conclusion that corroborating evidence was 
 3 

unavailable, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4), and he offers no other basis for review. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
JA9SACr GS/a 

!0P SBeRB! 'fie. if.Si: . Gm.t .. 

----~·-

Um _ S. EYES ONLY-.. 26 Jime 1900 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-13-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352e 

U. S. EYES ONLY 

PRNC-NCSW-3'+6 TOP SECRET 

18 
Subjoot: 

TilE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

Washinr.;tcm. 25~ D,.c. 

OECI.~.S4..so 

22 June l9So 

Replac01us11t· of Pt"esent Combined. Oiphar ?.!achmo 

(Om!} I 

lo Reference is iw.d.<0 to yov.r ~r;.-orcnd:wn, .iWSA.C lS/t:..'(J <fu·ood 

19 Juno 1960 ~ subject ao :ioov/3 and tho enclosed E'·i;e.ff s·"2dy@ 

2,. · The JCEO omwidered this matteir at :i;l:;a 2oo~~ine held cm. 

22 J'l..UlS 1900~ and coneura nith tao 13·taf:r si~. 

1-1-ms ONlY-

/s/ u«:1. !.IC CLELL.fl.!il) 

n.~.i. MO 0~1l 

lJajo.i" Gcmsral ~ USAF 

Chtd?il'.Um~ Joint Comimmiaations ... 

Eleatronica Committse · · 

PRN C-NC.SW-3~6 ,Qi S:SQRB! T........__..o___.__..p--~s ....... E-c._.......R~E-1 ........... u .s. m~s-am:.t .• ,....... . :::u=w.
### NUMBER S 13
- 20
- 00 064
- CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

JOSE ROBERTO VELIZ , A ppellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , A ppellee

.
On appeal from the 63rd District Court of Val Verde County, Texas.



## ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Order Per Curiam

Th e Court received a letter from court reporter Lisa A. Traslavina indicating she was not the official court reporter for the trial court for the entire pendency of this case. Additionally, this Court was informed the original official court reporter assigned to the
trial court is r etired and a record has not been reques ted from him/her.2 This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties' rights. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(a)(1). Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court. In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f)(4), the trial court is directed to conduct a hearing to determine if: (1) the appellant has timely request ed a reporter's record; (2) without the ap pellant's fault, a significant exhibit or a significant portion of the court reporter's notes and records has been lost or destroyed or

- if the proceedings were electronically recorded

- a significant portion of the recording has been lost or destroyed or is inaudible; (3) if the lost, destroyed, or inaudible portion of the reporter's record, or the lost and destroyed exhibit, is necessary to the appeal's resolution; and (4) the lost, destroyed, or inaudible portion of the reporter's record cannot be repla ced by agreement of the parties, or the lost or destroyed exhibit cannot be replaced either by agreement of the parties or with a copy determined by the trial court to accurately duplicate with reasonable certainty the original exhibit. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 34.6(f). The trial court is directed to forward the record of the proceedings, including any orders and findings, to this Court within sixty ( 6 0) days of the date of this order, or to notify this Court within such period indicating a date by which the tr ial court can comply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX R. A PP

. P. 4 7 .2( b )

. D elivered and filed t he 6th day of April, 2020.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Daniel M. Healy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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 M. Healy         
|                            
|Daniel M. Healy             
|Executive Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer     

November 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to North Fork
Bancorporation, Inc. and will be retained by North Fork Bancorporation, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

36