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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50308

Conference Calendar

 

BASIL UZOMA ONYIDO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

LUIS GARCIA, District Director, 

Immigration and Naturalization Service,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-97-CV-402-H

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Basil Uzoma Onyido appeals the district court’s order

dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his habeas petition. Onyido

challenges his detention order and also, for the first time on

appeal, challenges his deportation order. The appellee moves to

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, a federal

court may not review an order of deportation until the alien has

exhausted all applicable administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. 
No. 98-50308

-2-

§ 1105a(c). The exhaustion requirement is statutorily mandated,

and is jurisdictional. Townsend v. United States Dep't of

Justice INS, 799 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1986). Because Onyido

has not exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the

challenge to his deportation order, this court lacks jurisdiction

to review this issue. 

The amendments to the immigration laws, the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) and the Illegal Immigration Reform

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No.

104-208, 110 Stat. 3009., have significantly curtailed this

court’s jurisdiction over immigration cases. See Witter v. INS,

113 F.3d 549, 552 n.4 (5th Cir. 1997). 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), as

amended by IIRIRA, precludes federal-court jurisdiction to review

the Attorney General’s discretionary determinations over an

alien’s custody status. The effective date of IIRIRA is April 1,

1997. See IIRIRA § 303(b)(1), 309(a). AEDPA provisions relating

to immigration are retroactive. See Okoro v. INS, 125 F.3d 920,

923-24 (5th Cir. 1997); Mendez-Rosas v. INS, 87 F.3d 672, 676

(5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 694 (1997). 

Onyido filed his habeas petition on September 30, 1997 --

after the effective date of § 1226(e). Thus, the district court

did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Onyido’s

detention order. Likewise, this court lacks jurisdiction to

review this issue. 

Onyido has also filed a motion for an emergency injunctive

release order, a motion for oral argument, a motion for expedited
No. 98-50308

-3-

ruling, a motion to file a supplemental brief, and a motion for a

conference. In light of the dismissal of Onyido’s appeal for

lack of jurisdiction, his motions are DENIED. The appellee’s

motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED.

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q of American Community Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                  |  |     |  |                                                  
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 2, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Dan R. Ellis, Jr.                            
|                  |  |     |  | Dan R. Ellis, Jr.                                
|                  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

TERRY LEE O’BRIEN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0650 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-156235-001

The Honorable Teresa A. Sanders, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Terry Lee O’Brien, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann, and 

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 1-3-2019
STATE v. O’BRIEN

Decision of the Court

2

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Terry O’Brien seeks review of the superior court’s order 

dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s fourth successive

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTINE BAKER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 16218

D.C. Nos. 3:13

- cv

- 08169

- SPL

3:13

- cv

- 08193

- SPL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021 * *

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Christine Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action alleging claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

revie w for an abuse of discretion. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod s . Liab.

* 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

SEP 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 162 18

Litig. , 460 F.3d 1217, 1233

- 34 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal as a sanction under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37); Ash v. Cvetkov , 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984) ( dismissal for

failure to prose cut e) . We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Baker’s action

for failure to prosecute after Baker failed to attend her deposition. See Pagtalunan

v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 642

- 43 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth five

- factor test to be

considered before dismissing for failure to prosecute); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.

,

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (same five factors for dismissal under Rule 37);

see also Fe rdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although

“ dismissal is a harsh penalty, ” the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed

absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of

judgment” (citation and inter nal quotation marks omitted)).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Baker’s challenge to the

district court’s interlocutory order s

. See Al

- Torki v. Kaempen , 78 F.3d 1381, 1386

(9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment,

are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to

prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permit issued.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email:                         *ACApermits@nsf.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On November 26, 2021, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. The permit was issued on January 03, 2022, to:                

### Permit No. 2022-025

1. Dr. Kim Bernard 

Erika N. Davis,

Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 2022-00441 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4238 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4238

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 23, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 930 39th Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, as the ``W.D. Farr Post Office 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. W.D. FARR POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 930 39th Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``W.D. Farr Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``W.D. Farr 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 22, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28528]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. EP 765; Docket No. EP 755; Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2)]


Joint Petition for Rulemaking To Establish a Voluntary 
Arbitration Program for Small Rate Disputes; Final Offer Rate Review; 
Expanding Access to Rate Relief

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Extending time to submit reply comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Board grants, in part, a motion for an extension of time 
to file comments in Docket No. EP 765, extending the deadline for reply 
comments until April 15, 2021. The Board also will extend the deadline 
for reply comments in Docket Nos. EP 755 and EP 665 (Sub-No. 2) until 
April 15, 2022.

DATES: The reply comment periods established by the notices published 
on November 26, 2021, at 86 FR 67622 and 86 FR 67588 are extended until 
April 15, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. 
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal 
Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision, which is available at www.stb.gov.

    Decided: December 28, 2021.

    By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
Andrea Pope-Matheson,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2021-28528 Filed 1-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
NO. 07-02-0197-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 21, 2002

______________________________

ROY DAY AND $750 CASH BOND, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 154TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMB COUNTY;

NO. 3196-A; HONORABLE FELIX KLEIN, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Proceeding pro se, appellant Roy Day filed a motion for new trial indicating an intent

to appeal from the trial court’s default judgment. The motion for new trial/notice of appeal

was untimely filed and thus, we must dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

On March 4, 2002, the trial court signed a default judgment against Day for

forfeiture of a $750 bond for failing to appear to answer a felony charge. On April 19,
2

2002, Day filed a motion for new trial alleging he had not received notice of the trial setting

and claiming that he was in the county jail at the time of trial. He also indicated that his

failure to appeal was not intentional. 

By letter dated August 1, 2002, this Court notified Day of the defect and asked that

he explain why this proceeding should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Day

responded and requested that his appeal not be dismissed because he was hospitalized

from a heart attack. Whether the document filed by Day is interpreted as a motion for new

trial or a notice of appeal, it is untimely because either would have needed to be filed by

April 3, 2002, within 30 days after the default judgment was signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P.

329b(a); see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The document filed on April 19, 2002, does not

invoke our jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit 21.1


                                  Subsidiaries

1.       Headwaters acquired a 100% interest in Hydrocarbon Technologies, Inc.
         ("HTI") by agreements entered into in May 2001 and that closed in
         August 2001. HTI's subsidiaries are:

         a.       Chemsampco, Inc. ("Chemsampco"), a New Jersey corporation;

         b.       Hydrocarbon Technologies of Canada, Inc. ("HTC"), a Canadian
                  corporation located in the province of Alberta.

2.       Headwaters is a 50% member in Environmental Technologies Group, LLC, a
         Utah limited liability company of which Headwaters serves as manager.
         ETG is a special purpose entity that owns and plans to put into
         operations a synthetic fuel manufacturing facility.

3.       Headwaters acquired a 100% interest in Industrial Services Group, Inc.
         ("ISG") by agreements entered into in July 2002 and that closed in
         September 2002. ISG's operating subsidiary is ISG Resources, Inc., a
         Utah corporation. The subsidiaries of ISG Resources, Inc. are:

         a.       ISG Canada Limited, a Canadian corporation located in the
                  Province of New Brunswick;
         b.       ISG Manufactured Products, Inc., a Utah corporation;
         c.       ISG Partner, Inc., a Utah corporation;
         d.       ISG Swift Crete, Inc., a Utah corporation;
         e.       Flexcrete Building Systems, L.C., a Utah limited liability
                  company;
         f.       Best Masonry & Tool Supply, Inc., a Texas corporation;
         g.       Don's Building Supply, L.P., a Texas limited partnership;
         h.       Lewis W. Osborne, Inc., a California corporation;
         i.       Magna Wall, Inc., a Texas corporation;
         j.       Palestine Concrete Tile Company, L.P., a Texas limited
                  partnership;
         k.       United Terrazzo Supply Co., Inc., a California corporation.


         The following chart illustrates Headwaters' corporate structure. The
ownership of each subsidiary is 100%, except in the case of Environmental
Technologies Group, LLC, in which Headwaters owns a 50% interest:

<PAGE>


                            Headwaters Incorporated
                            -----------------------

                                 Environmental
Industrial Services              Technologies               Hydrocarbon
   Group, Inc                      Group, LLC             Technologies, Inc
   ----------                      ----------             -----------------

ISG Resources, Inc.                              Chemsampco, Inc.  Hydrocarbon
                                                                  Technologies
ISG Canada Limited                                               of Canada, Inc.

ISG Manufactured Products, Inc.

ISG Partner, Inc.

ISG Swift Crete, Inc.

Flexcrete Building Systems, L.C.

Best Masonry & Tool Supply, Inc.

Don's Building Supply, L.P.

Lewis W. Osborne, Inc.

Magna Wall, Inc.

Palestine Concrete Tile Company, L.P.

United Terrazzo Supply Co., Inc.
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

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, James A. Fontaine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                    |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ JAMES A. FONTAINE                                               |  | 
|James A. Fontaine                                                   |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer) |  | 

Date: April 26, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION
Deborah McCauley,
Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:17-cv-1141
v. : Judge Michael H. Watson

Quality of Life Home Care, LTD and
Don Oakley,

Defendants.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for
Plaintiff Deborah McCauley and Defendants quality of Life Home Care, Ltd. and Don Oakley
that the above-entitled action be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), without attorneys’ fees or costs to any party, and waiving all rights of appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Hany fetes

Sharon Cason-Adamis (0067 550) 8

Adams & Liming, L.L.C. ge Miller LLP

Rivers Edge Corporate Center SO West Street

1335 Dublin Road, Ste. 104D Columbus, OH 43215

Columbus, OH 43215 614.462.2286

614.488.2053 Counsel for Defendants Quality of Life Home Care,
Counsel for Plaintiff Deborah McCauley LTD and Don Oakley

CO\S821076.3
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case:. Maxine Adams and Cecil Adams v. Rebecca Ross

Appellate case number: 01-11,00098-CV

Trial court case number: 980, 231

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County, Texas

-andAppellate case Maxine Adams and Cecil Adams v. Rebecca Ross

Appellate case number: 01-11-00552-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-12207

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County, Texas

It is ORDERED that Appellants’ objections tO mediation in the above-referenced

appeals are denied. The above-referenced appeals shall proceed to mediation as provided in the

November 2, 2012 "Memorandum Order of Referral to Mediation."

Judge’s signature: /s/Harvey Brown

[] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: November 12, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

GARY L. MCCOY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:17-cv-432 

vs. 

DR. RODNEY L. CARLSON, et al., District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. 87); AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCS. 61, 65, 67) 

AS MOOT 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael J. 

Newman (Doc. 38), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The parties 

have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for filing such objections 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. 87) is ADOPTED in full; and (2) Defendants’ motions to dismiss the 

second amended complaint (Docs. 61, 65, 67) are DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: May 16, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated October 13, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-206719) of Smart Trust, Defensive
50 Equities Trust, Series 5.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 13, 2015