alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAGAB MOHAMED REZEK, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-71497 Agency No. A078-014-621
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued December 10, 2014 Submitted March 24, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. Ragab Mohamed Rezek, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his asylum application as time-barred. The IJ found that Rezek failed to establish extr aordinary circumstances for filing his 

# FILED
MAR 26 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.asylum application approximately 16 months after the one-year deadline. But the IJ did grant Rezek’s request for withholdi ng of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition to review the asylum application as time-barred under the one-year rule. The BIA did not err in determining that Rezek did not qualify for the extraordinary circumstances exception tothe one-year bar under the circumstances of this case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Neither Rezek’s pending adjustment application nor his reliance on his wife’s representation that she could help him remain in the United States qualified for the exception. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). Further, Rezek’s pursuit of adjustment of status was not directly related to his failure to meet the filing deadline as he could have pursued asylum and adjustment of status concurrently. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158; 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). Rezek does not provide any authority to support his claim that an applicant’s pursuit of another form of relief can excuse an untimely asylum application. This lack of authority is more glaring in this case, where the app licant was statutorily ineligible for that alternative form of relief. PETITION DENIED
.

2
1 Nesky, Anthony

To: Nesky, Anthony Subject: FW: Public Hearings

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sylvia Lambert < smldancer@hotmail.com > Date: March 24, 2015 at 1:10:35 AM EDT To: " Rosencrantz.ingrid@epa.gov " < rosencrantz.ingrid@epa.gov > Subject: Public Hearings

Dear Ms. Rosencrantz,

Re: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788

Public hearings about water protection rule s for uranium mining are being planned for Casper, WY.

There is uranium mining in NW Nebraska, and new ISL mining proposed for SW South Dakota. It is important that the rule s are carefully understood by the public, and perhaps, especially, before beginning in a new area.

There are many of us concer ned about protecting this area. I am requesting that you schedule a public hearing in C hadron, NE, so that ar ea people can participate.

Thank you,

Sylvia Lambert

P.O. Box 78

Interior, SD 57750

605-433-5420
Tremaine Latroy BAILEM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3775

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Guadalupe PEREZ-CHAVEZ, also known as Jose Perez-Chavez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-50838 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/29/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Guadalupe Perez-Chavez, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe Perez-Chavez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez-Chavez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**STATEMENT OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER OF****CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****§ 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Donald Boggus, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted 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 results of operations of the Company.

    

|   |                                                                              |   |   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   | /s/  J. DONALDBOGGUS, JR.                                               |   |   |        |
|   |                                                                                   |   |   |   |
|   | **J. Donald Boggus, Jr.****President and Chief Executive Officer****May 15,2003** |   |   |   |

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF****CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Leland W. Brantley,Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)

The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

   

|   |                                                                   |   |   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   | /s/  LELAND W. BRANTLEY,JR.                                  |   |   |        |
|   |                                                                        |   |   |   |
|   | **Leland W. Brantley, Jr.****Chief Financial Officer****May 15, 2003** |   |   |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 614 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 614

To amend the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 to provide 
 for the inclusion of certain workers in the exemption from numerical 
          limitations on H-2B workers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2023

 Mr. Wittman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 to provide 
 for the inclusion of certain workers in the exemption from numerical 
          limitations on H-2B workers, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Commercial Fishing and Seafood 
Business Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN WORKERS IN EXEMPTION FROM NUMERICAL 
              LIMITATIONS ON H-2B WORKERS.

    Section 14006 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 
(Public Law 108-287) is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 14006.  The numerical limitation contained in section 
214(g)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1184(g)(1)(B)) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a visa 
or otherwise provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) who is employed (or has received 
an offer of employment)--
            ``(1) on a commercial fishing vessel or shrimp trawler; or
            ``(2) in the processing of--
                    ``(A) fish or fishery products; or
                    ``(B) baitfish.
Terms used in this section have the meanings given such terms in 
section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
                                 <all>
```
Katherine YOUNG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sheri GALVEZ, Personally and/or in Her Capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Bonnie Lynn Hower, and/or John or Jane Doe, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0143

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Brion D. Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics,
Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2008 (the
“Report”). The undersigned hereby certifies that:





(1) 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: May
8, 2008





/s/ BRION D. UMIDIName:
            Brion
      D. UmidiTitle:
            Senior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: James P. Burns v. Paul M. Simon, Individually and Brad Livingston, 

Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-CID

Appellate case number: 01-12-00884-CV

Trial court case number: 69146I

Trial court: 412th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County

Appellant, James P. Burns, filed an affidavit in the trial court, seeking to establish 

indigence for costs of appeal. See TEX. R.. CIV. P. 20.1. The district clerk has notified the Court 

that a contest was not filed. See id. Accordingly, the allegations in the affidavit are deemed true, 

and appellant is entitled to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs. See id.

The Clerk of this Court shall make an entry in this Court’s records that appellant is 

indigent and is allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs.

The clerk’s record has been filed.

The court reporter is ordered to file in this Court, within 30 days of the date of this order 

and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record in the appeal, or a notice that no record was 

taken. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 34.6.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 12, 2013
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 17, 2014

NO. 03-14-00395-CV

Joel Paul Bach, Appellant

v.

Texas State University, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on May 21, 2014. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears to the Court that Joel Paul Bach has not prosecuted his appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court 

and the court below.
### Our court affirmed Willis' convictions on his direct appeal 1 

### in Unite d States v. Swinney , 970 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1992), cert
. denied sub nom. Willis v. United States , 113 S. Ct. 1650 (1993).

Appellant's motion to file a supplemental appendix i s 2 

### gr anted. That appendix is part of the record reviewed by thi s court. Appellant's motion for product ion of documents is denied, and his attorney's motion for leave to withdraw is dismissed as moot. No. 95-3632

James A. Willis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *
Submitted: May 17, 1996 Filed: June 21, 1996
Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James A. Willis appeals the district court's denial of his sectio n 2255 motion to set as ide his convictions for his involvement in a cocaine distribu tion conspiracy. Willis argues that the district court shoul d 1 have provided him with an evidentiary hearing to consider his claim that he was denied effective assistance at trial. Having carefully reviewed th e record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district 2

### 2

court correctly concluded that Willis has not established either tha t counsel's errors were below an objective standard of reasonableness or tha t the errors prejudiced him. Accordingly, we affirm the district court' s denial of Willis' motion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 10 (C)

Agreement between:            RecycleNet Corporation (a Utah Corporation)
                              P.O. Box 24017
                              Guelph, Ontario
                              Canada, N1E 6V8

and
                         metalworld.com, inc. (a Utah Corporation)
                              175 East 400 South, Suite 900
                              Salt Lake City, Utah
                              USA 84111


It is agreed that:

1.RecycleNet Corporation shall acquire all of the outstanding shares
  of metalworld.com, inc.

2.The total number of outstanding shares of metalworld.com, inc. is
  17,857,914.

3.metalworld.com, inc. shares will be acquired by RecycleNet
  Corporation at a value of 0.23 USD in exchange for common shares of
  RecycleNet Corporation.
  (The number of 17,857,914 shares X $0.23 USD = $4,107,320 USD)

4.The value of RecycleNet Corporation (OTC: GARM) shares at the close
  of trade on July14, 2000 is $0.15 USD/share.

5.metalworld.com, Inc. shares are convertible to
  RecycleNet Corporation (OTC: GARM) shares at a rate of 1:1.53
  ($0.23 USD / $0.15 USD = 1:1.53)
  1 share of metalworld.com, inc. will be exchanged for 1.53 shares
  of RecycleNet Corporation.

6.All references to shares in this document refer to common shares.


Dated this 14th day of July, 2000


/s/ Tom Hattle, President                /s/ Paul Roszel
-------------------------               ---------------------------------
Tom Hattle, President                   Paul Roszel, Chairman
metalworld.com, Inc.                    RecycleNet Corporation
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0539 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-145-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
James Y. EVANS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. ADVANCE SOUNDS AND PERFORMANCE, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1949

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 13, 2017

Upon consideration, petitioner's motion for rehearing and reinstatement is hereby denied.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and SALTER, JJ., concur.
Kurt SHANNON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1088

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to comply with this court's order of March 27, 2018, requiring the filing of an initial brief.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                                                           HORWATH ORENSTEIN LLP
                                                           Chartered Accountants
                                               A MEMBER OF HORWATH INTERNATIONAL

                                                       595 Bay Street, Suite 300
                                                                 Toronto, Canada
                                                                         M5G 2C2

                                                                  (416) 596 1711
                                                              (416) 596 7894 Fax
                                                                     www.hto.com

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the inclusion of our audit of the consolidated audited financial
statements of Yak Communications (USA) Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002
and 2001 as part of this Form 10-KSB.

/s/ Horwath Orenstein LLP

Horwath Orenstein LLP
Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario

September 26, 2002
Brandy BOLLOTTA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-970

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oscar Pena, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 631]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered January 27, 2003, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Exhibit





EXHIBIT 10.44

111, boul. Robert-Bourassa, bureau 5000
Montréal (Québec)  H3C 2M1  Canada
T 514-875-2160  pfresolu.com





January 30, 2019




Mr. Richard Garneau
1057 6e Rang
St-Prime QC G8J 1X8




Subject:  Terms and Conditions of Employment between Richard Garneau and Resolute FP Canada Inc.




Dear Richard, 


I am pleased to confirm the renewal of your employment contract as Special Advisor to the CEO. The terms and conditions of the Agreement of February 1st, 2018 remain unchanged, except for those detailed below. 


Retirement Plan 
Because of your age, as of January 1, 2019, you will be no longer eligible to participate in the Company's pension plan and to the DC Make-Up program applicable to key personnel, as the Income Tax Act prevents participation in registered saving vehicle after the end of the following year following attainment of age 71. 


Termination
Either party can terminate this contract at their discretion with a 3 months’ notice. It is understood that either party may at any time, for a serious reason, unilaterally terminate this contract without prior notice.


If you have any questions about this offer, please let us know. I look forward to your formal acceptance of this agreement.




Yves Laflamme
President and CEO






I have read the herein letter and hereby accept these terms and conditions.




_____________________________________    _____________________________________
Richard Garneau                         Date
Kevirent BRUNDAGE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2226

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 21, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that the above styled appeal is hereby dismissed as untimely since the order appealed was rendered on August 1, 2017, and the notice of appeal was not filed until October 3, 2017. This dismissal is without prejudice to appellant's right to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking belated appeal, if appropriate.

SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
Ralph P. RICHARD, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1347

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 26, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioners petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
EX PARTE Petro Deran PUGH

1160285 (CR-15-1033)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.