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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1053

CLAUDIA GUARDADO-GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Assistant 

Director, Enitan O. Otunla, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

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

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Claudia Yesenia Guardado-Garcia, a native and citizen of El 

Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the 

Immigration Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, 

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture.

Guardado-Garcia first asserts that the Board erred in 

finding that she failed to identify her proposed particular 

social groups before the IJ, and in declining to consider them

on appeal. Upon review, we find no error in the Board’s 

determination that Guardado-Garcia failed to raise her specific 

social groups before the IJ. We therefore lack jurisdiction to 

consider any claim based on the potential social groups, as they 

were not properly exhausted before the agency. See 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(d)(1) (2012); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise 

each argument to the [Board] before we have jurisdiction to 

consider it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We 

accordingly dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Guardado-Garcia next contends that the agency erred in 

finding that she failed to otherwise establish eligibility for 

asylum, withholding of removal or protection under the 

Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the 
3

record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a 

ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 

U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for 

review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re 

Guardado-Garcia (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2015). 

We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part the petition 

for review. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-K/A of
MUZAK LLC and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001085321
<NAME>                        MUZAK LLC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               2,275
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       42,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3,683
<INVENTORY>                                         12,283
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    56,065
<PP&E>                                             113,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (18,424)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     494,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               91,318
<BONDS>                                            115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           107,124
<OTHER-SE>                                         (22,883)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       494,274
<SALES>                                            130,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   130,016
<CGS>                                               48,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       48,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    77,789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1,185
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (24,918)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (22,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (439)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (21,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (21,736)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9329-9330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03509]


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

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD


Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Notice of members of senior executive service performance 
review board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) 
Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: These appointments were effective on February 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear 
Facilities

[[Page 9330]]

Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-
2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah A. Biscieglia by telephone at 
(202) 669-9138 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#25414047474c404765414b4356470b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="26424344444f434466424840554408414950">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(1) through (5) requires 
each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review 
boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of 
the senior executives' performance, the executives' responses, and the 
higher-level officials' comments on the initial summary rating. In 
addition, the PRB will review and recommend executive performance 
bonuses and pay increases.
    The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the 
members of the DNFSB SES Performance Review Board listed in this notice 
are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies. The following persons 
comprise a standing roster to serve as members of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board SES Performance Review Board:
    Dolline L. Hatchett, Director, Office of Safety Recommendations and 
Communications, National Transportation Safety Board;
    Andrea Kock, Deputy Office Director for Engineering, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
    Catherine Haney, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, 
Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration and Human Capital 
Programs, Nuclear Regulation Commission.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4314.

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Joyce L. Connery,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2022-03509 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cedric Levar BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-14707 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 17, 2017)

Holly Lynn Gershow, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Kelly S. Karase, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Plaintiff-Appellee

Cedric Levar Brown, Pro Se

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Truncate, appoint counsel for Cedric Levar Brown, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issue of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Brown’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7743

WILLIE A. HOWELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COLIE L. RUSHTON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:07-cv-01582-CMC) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie A. Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Willie A. Howell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Howell 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
Wallace C. JONES Junior, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2400

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 28, 2017

Following review of appellant's response to this Court's order to show cause, it is ordered that the above styled appeal is hereby dismissed as one taken from a non-final, non-appealable order.

SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

January 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 129927 & (23) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan

_____________ _______________ _____________ Robert P. Young, Jr.

IN RE DARION MICHA EL JOHN-COBB, Minor. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

_____________ _______________ _____________
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERIVCES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 129927 COA: 264927 WILLIAM A. JOHN, IV, Respondent-Appellant, and Wayne CC Family Division: 04-436616-NA

ELIZABETH COBB, Respondent.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to stay is also considere d, and it is DENIED.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would remand this case to the Court of Appeals as on leave granted.

s0125 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 31, 2006

Clerk
John CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, National Association as Trustee as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-AR9, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3179

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
July 10, 2015

Kate Kelly, Director

Office of Air Waste and Toxics

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 6th Ave., Seattle, WA 98119

Department of Environmental

Conservation

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

Division Director

410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303

PO Box 111800

Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800

Main: 907-465-5100

Toll Free: 866-241-2805

Fax: 907-465-5129

www.dec.alaska.gov

Dear Ms. Kelly:

In response to your request, I am writing to confirm that Alaska Rules 18 AAC 50.075 and 50.076 as

amended on January 29, 2015, contain a continuous emission limitation consistent with federal

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy

regarding excess emissions during start-up, shut-down and malfunction (or upset) conditions.

Alaska Rule 18 AAC 50.075 (a) (2) prohibits visible emissions from solid-fuel fired appliances that

exceed 50% opacity for more than six minutes in any one hour in an area for which an air quality

advisory is in effect under 18 AAC 50.245 or 18 AAC 50.246. Emissions created during a fifteen

minute start-up period are not subject to this opacity limit. However, other requirements of state

rules apply to solid-fuel fired appliances at all times, including during startup. Specifically, 18 AAC

50.076 stipulates the types of fuels that may be used in wood-fired heating devices, including wood,

wood pellets, manufactured compressed logs, bricks and pucks. 18 AAC 50.076 (b) further stipulates

that during the winter months - October 1 - March 31, dry wood (moisture content of 20% or less)

is required.

Additionally, AK rule 18 AAC 50.076 (c) explicitly prohibits burning of other materials, including

wood that has paint, stains or other types of coating; wood that has been treated with preservatives

including copper chromium, arsenate, creosote or pentacholorophenol; asphalt, rubber or tar

products; chlorinated or halogenated organic compounds; compounds containing cyanide or

asbestos; animal carcasses or putrescible garbage. This section of the rule prohibits burning of these

materials at all times. All of these materials would increase emissions. These fuel restrictions

constitute work practice requirements that limit emissions during startup conditions. AK rules 18

AAC 50.075 and 18 AAC 50.076 thus include limits on emissions that apply during all modes of

source operation and impose continuous emission controls on solid-fuel fired appliances consistent

with the requirements of the CAA applicable to State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions.

Clean Air
Ms. Kelly July 10, 2015

Accordingly, AK rules 18 AAC 50.075 and 18 AAC 50.076 create no exemptions for emissions

during any mode of source operation (including startup, shutdown or malfunction/upset

conditions).

Sincerely,

Denise Koch, Air Director

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 20

- 00079

- CV

IN RE Chad KLEIN
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 12, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On February 6, 2020, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, and requested a stay of
the trial court’s temporary orders that relator contends were orally rendered on February 5, 2020

. After considering the petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). R elator’s
request for a stay is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017

- CI

- 01708 , styled In the Interest of B.F.K., K.K., and B.M.K., Children , pending in the 57th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honor able Antonia Arteaga, presiding.
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. section1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chloe DiVita,
Treasurer, Secretary, Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.



BY(Signature)                         /s/ Chloe DiVita
(Name and Title)                      Chloe DiVita,
                                      Treasurer, Secretary, Director
                                      and Chief Financial Officer

(Date)                                January 4, 2010






                                       16


                                  End of Filing
**Custom er Service Hotlin**  **e: 1 -**  **800 -**  **438 -**  **2474 UNITED STA** 

**TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A**  **GENCY**

**REGION III 1650 A**  **rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103**  **- 2029** 
February 7, 2013 The Honorable Randy

C. Huffman Secretary , West Virginia Department of Environme ntal Protection Division of Air Quality 601 57 th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304
- 2943
Dear Secretary

Huffman : On December 11, 2012 , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the West Virginia State I mplementation Plan (SI P) from the Department of Environmental Protection. Th is SI P revision request s redesignation s of the Charleston 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 nonattainment area to att ainment and approval of the Area’s maintenance plan s . EPA has determined that the submittal is admi nistratively and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). If members of y our staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Rose Quinto , Office of Air Quality

Planning , at (215) 814
- 2 182 . She is the principal contact for this rulemakin g . Sincerely , /s/ Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division
cc: John Benedict, WVDEP Fred Durham, WVDEP
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Rocketinfo, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Philip Graves
                                 ----------------------
                                 Philip Graves
                                 Chief Executive Officer

December 1, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aurelio Olmedo MONTES, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aurelio Olmedo-Montes, also known as Lelo Montes, also known as Juan Monteroz-Montez, also known as Adrian Montez, also known as Adrian Montes, also known as Adrian *353Montes-McCrary, also known as Aurelio Olemedo Montes, also known as Lelo Montez, also known as Lelo Olmedo-Montes, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50268 Cons. w/ No. 17-50269 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

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

Aurelio Olmedo Montes, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Aurelio Olmedo Montes 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). Olme-do Montes 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 appeals present 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 APPEALS ARE 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 *354the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5,4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adiel HERNANDEZ-DEL CID, a.k.a. Adiel Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10286

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 16, 2017 *

Filed August 18, 2017

Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for ■

Adiel Hernandez-Del Cid, Pro Se

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Adiel Hernandez-Del Cid appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for re-entry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Del Cid’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with á motion to withdraw as counsel. We have provided Hernandez-Del Cid the opportunity to file a pro, se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Hernandez-Del Cid waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.