alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2474

GRACE PETRAL ANYIKE, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-100-373) Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: August 22, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Joel E. Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Grace Petral Anyike, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Anyike challenges the immigration judge’s finding that she failed to demonstrate that she filed her application within one year of the date of her arrival in the United States. See8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft , 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Anyike’s asylum claim. While we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s ruling on the asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial of Anyike’s requests for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2005). “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 (1994)). To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of- 3 - demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Anyike failed to meet these standards. Accordingly, we deny the 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
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3929 

To provide an extension of the low-income housing credit placed-in-service 

date requirement for certain disaster areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. MELANCON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide an extension of the low-income housing credit 

placed-in-service date requirement for certain disaster areas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT 

4 RULES FOR CERTAIN DISASTER AREAS. 

5 Section 1400N(c)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

6 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2011’’ and in7 serting ‘‘January 1, 2013’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JORDAN PALMER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-741

[September 30, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Daniel Arthur Casey,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-11451CF10A.

Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., Ft. 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JOHN FREDERICK BALLENTINE, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 97-7568 WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-181-R) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL John Frederick Ballentine, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas DrummondBagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: John Frederick Ballentine filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), which was referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, who recommended dismissing the petition. The report contained language advising Ballentine that he must file written objections to the report within ten days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C) (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The magistrate judge's report was entered on the district court's docket on October 20, 1997, and objections were due on November3, 1997. On October 27, 1997, Ballentine mailed a nine-page document he entitled "Appeal" to the district court and the respondent. The document does not specifically express an intent to appeal to this Court, but takes issue with various aspects of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The magistrate judge's report is not such an order. However, according Ballentine's document a liberal construction, see Gordon v. Leeke , 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978), we construe the "appeal" notice as objections to the magistrate judge's report. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the district court with instructions to construe Ballentine's filing styled "Appeal" as timely objections to the magistrate judge's report. 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. DISMISSED AND REMANDED
2
Opened Invitation: 0 

Clicked Registration Link: 79Total Attended: 21

First Name Last Name Email Country Address Phone City Industry State OrganBrian Jeanes bjeanes@master-bilt.com US 908 HWY 15 North (662) 539-4259 New Albany Manufacturing MS MasteGeorge Parsons gparsons@kysorwarren.com US 5201 Transport Blvd 706-568-8962 Columbus Manufacturing GA Kysor/Brian Buynacek brian.buynacek@emerson.com US 138 Ashwood Ln 937-238-1160 Orchard Park Manufacturing NY EmersBruce Hierlmeier bruce.hierlmeier@zero-zone.com US 110 N Oakridge Dr. 262-392-6400 North Prairie Manufacturing WI Zero ZMatthew Swink mateoswink@hotmail.com US 450 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 8000 Washington Government - Federal DC US DeJames Douglas jim.douglas@tecumseh.com US 1136 Oak Valley Drive 517 423-8473 Ann Arbor Manufacturing MI TecumBen DeJager bdejager@structuralconcepts.com US 888 E Porter rd 231-798-6287 Muskegon Other MI StructuIra Richter ira.richter@heatcraftrpd.com US 2175 west park place blvd 770 465 5832 Stone Mountain Manufacturing GA HeatcrMichael Woodford mwoodford@ahrinet.org US 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite # 600 703-600-0328 Arlington Other VA AHRI Sean Gouw sean.gouw@sce.com US 6060 N Irwindale Ave Suite N Azusa CA Rex Brandt rex.brandt@carrier.utc.com US 750 N Blackhawk BLVD 815-624-5284 Rockton Manufacturing IL Taylor Jennifer Williamson jennifer.williamson@pnl.gov US PO Box 999, MSIN K6-05 509-372-4168 Richland Energy, Chemical, Utilities WA Pacific Roger Carlone rcarlone@traulsen.com US 4401 Blue Mound Road 800-740-6792 Fort Worth Manufacturing TX TraulsJamy Bacchus jbacchus@nrdc.org US 111 Sutter St. San Francisco Other CA NRDC Alison Neligan aln@nyserda.org US 17 Columbia Circle 518-862-1090 Albany Government - State & Local NY NYSEJohn Morris jmorris@nrac.com US 539 Dunksferry red 215-244-1400 Bensalem Manufacturing PA ContinKazutoyo Fukukura kfukukura@see.sanyo.com US 2001 Sanyo Ave. 619 671 4323 San Diego Manufacturing CA Sanyo Stephen Schaefer stschaefer@hoshizaki.com US 618 Hwy 74 South 770-487-2331 Peachtree City Manufacturing GA HoshizJeff Bauman jbauman@nrac.com US 539 Dunksferry Rd. 215-244-1400 Bensalem Manufacturing PA ContinEric Andersen eric.andersen@pnl.gov US PO Box 999 5093752735 Richland Government - Federal WA Pacific Larry Howington larry.howington@hillphoenix.com US 1925 Ruffin Mill Road 8044512471 Colonial Heights Manufacturing VA Hill PHTravis Lumpkin tlumpkin@kysorwarren.com US 5 Coporate Ridge Pkwy Columbus Manufacturing GA Kysor Jeremy Poston jposton@energetics.com US 7067 Columbia Gateway Columbia MD Robert DelVentura robert.delventura@heatcraftrpd.com US 2175 West Park Place Boulevard (770) 465-5759 Stone Mountain Manufacturing GA HeatcrJon McHugh jon@mchughenergy.com US PO Box 2878 916-966-8600 Fair Oaks Consulting CA MEC - Gail Breneman gail.breneman@pnl.gov US 902 Battelle Blvd 509-372-4102 Richland Government - Federal WA PNNL/

Public Meeting for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Test Procedures Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Attendee List
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08870]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-15-013]


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: April 23, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
1. Agendas for future meetings: none
2. Minutes
3. Ratification List
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-531-533 and 731-TA-1270-1273 (Preliminary) 
(Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin (``PET Resin'') from Canada, China, 
India, and Oman). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and 
file its determination on April 24, 2015; views of the Commission are 
currently scheduled to be completed and filed on May 1, 2015.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.
    Dated: April 14, 2015.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-08870 Filed 4-14-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 99.1

                      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


CONTACT:  Steven F. Groth, Chief Financial Officer
          (212) 599-8000


    FINANCIAL FEDERAL CORPORATION ANNOUNCES MICHAEL C. PALITZ
     HAS RESIGNED AS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND TREASURER
     ------------------------------------------------------


NEW  YORK,  NY:  February 5, 2003 - Financial Federal Corporation
("FIF"  -  NYSE),   announced today that Michael  C.  Palitz  has
resigned  from  his  position  as Executive  Vice  President  and
Treasurer  effective March 14, 2003 to pursue  interests  outside
the  industry.  Mr. Palitz will remain a member of the  Board  of
Directors.

In 1989, Mr. Palitz, together with Paul R. Sinsheimer, Bernard G.
Palitz, Clarence Y. Palitz, Jr. and William M. Gallagher, founded
Financial Federal Corporation.  He served as the Company's  Chief
Financial  Officer from 1989 through September 2000.  During  his
tenure  as  Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Palitz had a significant
role  in  establishing  and maintaining  many  of  the  Company's
relationships within the banking and investment communities.

Paul  R. Sinsheimer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief
Executive  Officer,  commented: "On behalf  of  the  Company  and
myself,  I  would  like to thank Michael for his  many  years  of
service  and  look  forward to his continued contributions  as  a
member of the Board of Directors.  We wish him well in his future
endeavors."


Financial Federal Corporation specializes in financing industrial
and  commercial equipment through installment sales  and  leasing
programs  for  manufacturers, dealers and end  users  nationwide.
For additional information, please visit the Company's website at
www.financialfederal.com.


This  document  contains forward-looking  statements  within  the
meaning  of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of  1995
and  are  subject  to risks and uncertainties  that  could  cause
actual  results to differ materially from those contained in  the
forward-looking  statements.  Readers are referred  to  the  most
recent  reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed by the Company  with
the  Securities and Exchange Commission that identify such  risks
and uncertainties.


                               ###
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jay Dee Burns, * From the 70th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. A-45,138.

Vs. No. 11-20-00016-CR * February 21, 2020

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 32.1

     Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, L. B. (Brad) Clarke, Chief Executive Officer of Organetix, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: December 28, 2005

/s/ L. B. (Brad) Clarke
-------------------------------
L. B. (Brad) Clarke
Chief Executive Officer
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONUNDER SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifiesthat this periodic report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AdventSoftware, Inc.

 
| March 16, 2007 |   | /s/ Stephanie G.  DiMarco                 |   |   |   |   |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|           |   | Stephanie G. DiMarco                      |   |   |
|           |   | Principal Executive Officer and President |   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AdventSoftware, Inc. and will be retained by Advent Software, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Wayne R. Hellman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operating ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: September 28, 2005 /s/ Wayne R. Hellman     Name: Wayne R. Hellman  Title: Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6877

DONALD CORNELIUS JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-05-282-JBF) Submitted: August 17, 2005 Decided: August 29, 2005 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Cornelius Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Donald Cornelius Jackson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

September 15, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00348

- CV

Tammie JOLLIFF

, Appellant

v.

Edward A. SPRINGS

, Appellee

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Tria l Court No. 2016

- CV

- 0112 Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding



### SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Appellant’ s brief was due to be filed by August 26, 2016 . Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time have been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 38.8(a) (1)

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WIT NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of September, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Co urt
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 21.01

                              List of Subsidiaries


                                                     PROPORTION OF NOMINAL VALUE
NAME OF COMPANY AND COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION         OF ISSUED SHARES AND VOTING
AND OPERATION                                        RIGHTS HELD BY INSIGNIA
                                                     SOLUTIONS PLC

Insignia Solutions International Limited             100%
(England & Wales)

Jeode Limited                                        100%
(England & Wales)

Insignia Solutions Inc (Delaware)                    100%

Insignia Solutions Foreign Sales Inc                 100%
(Barbados)

Emulation Technologies Inc (USA)                     100%

Insignia Solutions France SARL (France)              100%

Kenora Ltd. (Hong Kong)                              100%

Korrogo Technologies Ltd.                            100% owned by Kenora Ltd.
(England & Wales)

Mi4e AB (Sweden)                                     100% owned by Korrogo
                                                     Technologies Ltd.