alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Edward FIELDS, Appellant v. Scott S. HARRIS, Appellee.

No. 15-5276

September Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed: 07/26/2016

*809Charles Edward Fields, Kincheloe, MI, Pro Se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 84(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal order, filed April 13, 2015, be affirmed. Only the Supreme Court has inherent and exclusive supervisory authority over the Supreme Court Clerk. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam). Further, clerks, like judges, are immune from damages suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C.Cir.1993) (per curiam). Finally, to the extent the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), and appellant did not allege, at the time the complaint was filed, he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” the district court appropriately characterized the dismissal as appellant’s third “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6062 

AN ACT 

To restore the ability of the people of American Samoa 

to approve amendments to the territorial constitution 

based on majority rule in a democratic act of self-determination, as authorized pursuant to an Act of Congress 

delegating administration of Federal territorial law in 

the territory to the President, and to the Secretary of 

the Interior under Executive Order 10264, dated June 

29, 1951, under which the Constitution of American 

Samoa was approved and may be amended without requirement for further congressional action, subject to 

the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause 

in article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the United States 

Constitution. 
2 

•HR 6062 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON AMENDMENTS 

4 TO OR MODIFICATIONS OF THE CONSTITU5 TION OF AMERICAN SAMOA. 

6 Section 12 of Public Law 98–213 (48 U.S.C. 1662a) 

7 is repealed. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6062 

AN ACT 

To restore the ability of the people of American 

tion. section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitugress under the Territorial Clause in article IV, gressional action, subject to the authority of Conamended without requirement for further conAmerican Samoa was approved and may be June 29, 1951, under which the Constitution of the Interior under Executive Order 10264, dated ritory to the President, and to the Secretary of ministration of Federal territorial law in the terpursuant to an Act of Congress delegating adcratic act of self-determination, as authorized constitution based on majority rule in a demoSamoa to approve amendments to the territorial
orccii-ex106_116.htm



Exhibit 10.6

 

Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC

399 Park Avenue, 38th Floor

New York, NY 10022

 

February  27, 2019

 

Craig W. Packer

Owl Rock Capital Corporation II

399 Park Avenue, 38th Floor

New York, NY 10022

 


			
	
 
	
Re:
	
Waiver of Incentive Fee on Income




 

Dear Mr. Packer,

 

Reference is hereby made to the Investment Advisory Agreement (the “Investment Advisory Agreement”), dated February 6, 2017, by and between Owl Rock Capital Corporation II (the “Company”) and Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC (the “Adviser”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Investment Advisory Agreement.

 

We hereby agree to waive 100% of the Incentive Fee on Income for the year ended December 31, 2018, as calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP.  

 

Any portion of the Incentive Fee on Income waived shall not be subject to recoupment.  

 For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of the waiver described herein is to reduce aggregate fees payable to the Adviser by the Company for the year ended December 31, 2018. 


			
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Sincerely yours,

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
          

	
 
	
 
	
Name: Alan Kirshenbaum

	
 
	
 
	
Title: Chief Operating Officer




 

 

1
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6938

DOUGLAS ROY SYMMES, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondent

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 00235

- WO

- JEP )

Submitted : February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Douglas Roy Symmes, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6938 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Douglas Roy Symmes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Symmes’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Sla ck v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Symmes 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 this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6938 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

                         RULE 13a - 14(b) CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Glacier Water  Services,  Inc., (the
Company)  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  July 3,  2005 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. David
Walters,  Senior Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to and for the  purposes of 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 of the Company as of the
          dates  indicated  and  results of  operations  of the  Company for the
          periods indicated.


/s/   W. David Walters
      ----------------

W. David Walters
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
July 29, 2005
PD-0144-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/11/2015 3:07:58 PM

Accepted 3/12/2015 9:48:10 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
#### John Mark MANGTHAG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71849

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

John Mark Mangthag, Pro Se

Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Mark Mangthag, a native and citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, *Jiang v. Holder,*754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, *Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We do not consider Mangthag’s contentions from his opening brief that he did not raise to the BIA, including his challenges to his underlying state court criminal proceedings. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below).

We reject Mangthag’s contentions that the agency violated his due process rights. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of Mangth-ag’s request for voluntary departure. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); *Corro-Barragan v. Holder,*718 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial of voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand Mangthag’s case where he did not express a fear of return to the IJ, and did not submit any new facts or an asylum application on appeal to the BIA. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6312
CHARLES JONES, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODORE PURNELL; REICLYN, Captain; EUGENENUTH; J. REVELL, Captain; J. STROCKE, Lieutenant; M. DIGGS, Major; L. CARTER, Sergeant; SERGEANT WATKINS; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; JOHN PARKER, Adjustment Hearing Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95- 645-L) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Purnell , No. CA95-645-L (D. Md. Feb 20, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 15**

**Letter from Ernst & Young LLP Regarding Unaudited Interim Financial Information**

The Stockholders and Boardof Directors of First Data Corporation 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-125588, 333-101883,333-90180, 333-90182, 333-66368, 33-47234, 33-48578, 33-82826, 33-87338, 33-90992, 33-62921, 33-98724, 33-99882, 333-09017, 333-09031, 333-28857, 333-68689, 333-81691, 333-85715, 333-90719 and 333-93703; Form S-3 No. 333-120214; and Form S-4Nos. 333-15497 and 333-105432) of First Data Corporation of our report dated May 4, 2007 relating to the unaudited consolidated interim financial statements of First Data Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2007. 

 

Denver, Colorado 

May 4, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF CONTINUING ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Corbik Reece v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-14-00484-CR, 01-14-00485-CR

Trial court case numbers: 1338724, 1338725 

Trial court: 174th Judicial District Court of Harris County

We abated these two related appeals on October 9, 2014, to have the trial court, 

among other things, hold a hearing, execute an amended certification of appellant’s right 

to appeal, and enter written findings of fact. The abatement hearing record was filed on 

November 3, 2014, with appellant appearing by video. The supplemental clerk’s record 

with findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, signed on November 7, 2014, was 

filed on January 6, 2015. Although the trial court found that appellant entered into a plea 

bargain at sentencing and that the trial court did not grant appellant permission to appeal, 

the trial court failed to include an amended certification, as required by Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2).

We therefore continue to abate these appeals and remand the causes to the trial 

court to execute an amended certification of appellant’s right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). On remand, the trial court does not need to conduct another hearing or 

have the appellant present or sign the certification. The trial court clerk is directed to file 

a supplemental clerk’s record in each cause containing the amended certification with this 

Court within 15 days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(2).

These appeals are abated, treated as closed cases, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. These appeals will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when 

supplemental clerk’s records that comply with our order are filed with the Clerk of this 

Court for each cause number.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 22, 2015
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 annual report of INCA Designs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008 (the Report), I, Stacy Josloff, 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:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Stacy Josloff      
|Stacy Josloff          
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 28, 2008         

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
AMERICAN S GROUP, LLC, Appellant, v. BIG CHOICE, LLC, Appellee.

No. 4D17-792

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

Andrey Solonenko, Miramar, for appellant.

Jordana Sarrell of Sarrell, Sarrell & Bender, P.L., Boca Raton, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* .

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.
John JOHNSON v. Twala Grant WALLACE

1160051

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 26 **

** **

**Consent of Amec Foster Wheeler AmericasLimited**

 

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-Fof New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to Amec Foster WheelerAmericas Limited, formerly known as AMEC Americas Limited, in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, thetechnical report entitled "Technical Report Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada”, dated February14, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2014, and we consentto the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New GoldInc.

  

Dated this 27th day of March, 2015

 

On behalf of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited

 

*/s/ Kris Homer *

Name: 	Kris Homer

Title: 	Vice President Operations, South America
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
Annual Report of Ariba, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert M. Calderoni, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Ahmed Rubaie, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:



|(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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    ROBERT M.
CALDERONIRobert M. CalderoniChief Executive Officer


Date: November 25, 2009



/s/    AHMED
RUBAIEAhmed RubaieExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 25, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6132 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6132

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2024

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to promulgate a 
mandatory consumer product safety standard with respect to retractable 
                                awnings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Awning Safety Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD FOR RETRACTABLE AWNINGS.

    (a) Consumer Product Safety Standard Required.--Not later than 18 
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission shall promulgate, under section 553 of title 
5, United States Code, a final consumer product safety standard for 
fixed and freestanding retractable awnings within the jurisdiction of 
the Commission to protect against the risk of death or serious injury 
related to the hazards associated with such awnings, including the risk 
of death or serious injury related to the awning unexpectedly opening 
and striking a person while removing the bungee tie-downs for the cover 
of the awning.
    (b) CPSC Determination of Scope.--The Consumer Product Safety 
Commission shall specify the types of retractable awning devices within 
the jurisdiction of the Commission that are within the scope of 
subsection (a) as part of a standard promulgated under this section, as 
reasonably necessary to protect against hazards associated with 
retractable awnings.
    (c) Treatment of Standard.--A consumer product safety standard 
promulgated under subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product 
safety rule promulgated under sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product 
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 and 2058).

            Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lavern Junior JACOBS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6263

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Decided: September 21, 2017

Lavern Junior Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lavern Junior Jacobs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jacobs 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*