alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM M . B R

YSON, Jr., Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF JUSTIC E; e t a l., R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 12-17106 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00322-AW I M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Fe de ra l prisone r W i llia

m M . B ry son a

ppe a ls pro se from

the dism issa l of his pe tition for a

writ of a udita que re la re que sting a

re fund of a

$100 spe c ia l 

# FIL ED

MAY22 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a sse ssm e nt im pose d a s pa

rt of his se n te nc e for m one y la unde ring. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo whe the r a fe de ra l prisone r m ay

file a pe tition for a

writ of a u dita que re la , se e Unite d State s v . ValdezPac he c o , 237 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th C i r. 2001) (pe r c uriam ), an d m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord, se e Holle y v . Yarborough , 568 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th C ir. 2009). B ry son c onte nds tha

t he is e ntitle d to a

re fund be c a

use the re is insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to support his m one y la unde ring c onvic tion. Dism issa l of the pe tition wa s prope r be c a

use the se argum e nts a

re c ogniz a

ble in a 28 U.S.C . § 2255 m otion. Se e Valde z-Pac he c o , 237 F.3d a

t 1079-80 (a

writ of a u dita que re la is only

ava ila ble to fill in “ ga

ps” i n postc o nvic tion re m e die s). Tha t B ry son ha s a lre a dy sought ha be a s re lie f and is now pre c l ude d from filing a se c tion 2255 motion a

bse nt a uthoriz ation from

the C o urt of Appe a ls doe s not m ake a writ of a udita que re la ava ila ble to him . Se e id . at 1080. W e do not c onside r B ry son’ s a dditional a rgum e nts. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C i r. 2009) (pe r c uriam ) (this c ourt doe s not c onside r

1 The distric t c ourt’ s orde r e rrone ously sta t e s tha t B ry son file d a

ha be a s pe tition under 28 U.S.C . § 2241. Howe ve r, the m a gistra te judge ’ s findings a

nd re c o m m e ndation, whic h

we re a dopte d in full, a c c urate ly de s c ribe and a

na l y z e B ry son’ s filing a s a

pe tition for a

writ of a udita que re la . 1 2 - 1 7 1 0 6 2argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l or in there p ly

brie f). B ry son’ s m otion to strike the answe ring brie f is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 7 1 0 6 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Patrick O’Rafferty and Bruno Makara, Appellants.

Submitted December 6, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*802
      *Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Alan J. Elliot*of counsel), for motion.

*Patrick O’Rafferty,*in person, opposed.

Motion granted and appeals dismissed on the ground that none of the orders is appealable to this court.
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350






In connection with this Annual Report of Maxlife Fund Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bennett Kurtz, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2010, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxlife Fund Corp..




Dated: November 15, 2010




MAXLIFE FUND CORP.




By:/s/ Bennett Kurtz


Bennett Kurtz


President, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer,
 Principal Accounting Officer,
 and Director
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0158 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0158

**2003/158/EC,Euratom: Decision of the European Parliament of 15 January 2003 appointing the European Ombudsman **

*
Official Journal L 065 , 08/03/2003 P. 0026 - 0026 Official Journal 038 E , 12/02/2004 P. 0280 - 0280 *

Decision of the European Parliament

of 15 January 2003

appointing the European Ombudsman(1)

(2003/158/EC, Euratom)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 21, second paragraph, and Article 195 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 107d thereof,

Having regard to its decision of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties(2), as amended by its decision of 14 March 2002(3),

Having regard to Rule 177 of its Rules of Procedure,

Having regard to the call for nominations(4),

Having regard to its votes of 14 and 15 January 2003,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Mr Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS has been appointed European Ombudsman with effect from 1 April 2003.

Done at Strasbourg, 15 January 2003.

For the European Parliament

The President

P. Cox

(1) This decision annuls and replaces Decision 2002/103/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament (OJ L 43, 18.2.2003, p. 43).

(2) OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 92, 9.4.2002, p. 13.

(4) OJ C 213, 7.9.2002, p. 10.
### THE SECRETARY 

### OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

September 25,2013

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Grassley: f·
.. :,

Thank you for your letter supporting the application submitted bythe Quad City International Airport for a grant tmder the U.S. Department ofTransportation'sSmall CommunityAir Service Development Progrant. The Small Community AirService Development Program was established to help smaller communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues relatedto high airfares or insufficientservice. Underthe statute,the Department may make a maximum of40 grant awards each year, although no more than four awards may be to communitiesinthe same State. In order to provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to theirair s.ervice deficiencies, the statuteprovides flexibility in the types ofprojects that can be funded
.. On June 24, the Department issued an order setting a deadline ofJuly 26 for applications. As these grant requests are pending before the Department, I cannot comment on the merits ofany particularproposaL I assure you that the Department will give 

### fhll and fair consideration to all proposals that have been properly filed. As is our standard practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and this response inDocket DOT-OST-2013-0120 

## as a contact outside the record ofthis matter. I appreciate your interest in this program.

Anthony R. Foxx' 135 HAIH St:NAiE OH!CL BtHLDiMl

, DC 205 10··1501

i 721 fEOfl-\/\1 8UlUJ1N<;

210 Wl'-LNUl srrti:u 

# llnitcd**~tatcs ~cnatc**  Des**Mo•~<•** s, lA 50309-2140**~~~S\** 2813-114!'> 111 7TH AVENOf-. SE, Box L) • Scnrr 6800

C!:**[)J\1~** R.·'\Pl!J;;, lA 5240'1··2101 13191363··6832
The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE CHARLES E. GRASSLEY WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1501 August 20, 2013

Washington, District ofColumbia 20590-0001 Dear Secretary Foxx, 1(K7 FHH"HI\i COllHI>IOUSi. BUltU:Ntt :120 UTH s H-H fT Cnv 1A 51101,·1244 (112\ 233 1800 210 WA1f HtiY.18UltD!NC; 531 C<>!'.H\leHU/\1 Swr:r r W,\TfP.tOO, !A 50701**~5<197** \318\ 232-vGS7 201 2ND Srm 1. r Sunr 720**D~"l.VfNf>,)BT'** !/\ 57.301·· 1317 (563! 3?2·4331 307 ff.D\.HM**B~n \~1nn**  8 So1nu 6TH Smrt r Cowr>Jcu**Bt~.JHS,** !A 51501·· 04?.04 17121 322· 7103

I was recently contacted by the business and transportation communities in the Quad Cities area regarding the Small Community Air Service Development Grant submitted by the Quad City International Airport located in Moline, Illinois. l ask that this application be given all due consideration. Any information or assistance you could provide me with respect to this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and effort on this matter. IfI may be ofany assistance withthis application, please contact my office at 202-224-3744.

CEG/sk

RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY Sincerely,

# ~~~ Charles E. Grassley United States Senator ·

Cornrnittee Assignments: AGR!CULTURE BUDGET FINANCE

f'R!1':ri.n ON HfCiCt ff) p;-.,pf.-[-i Co-CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL CAUCUS
#### LI XIAN LIN, Jing Cheng Jiang v. SESSIONS, [ AXXX XXX XXX ], [ AXXX XXX XXX ] Qiao Lin v. Sessions, [ AXXX XXX XXX ]

13-3695

13-4327

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

August 9, 2017

Richard Tarzia, Law Office of Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ, for Petitioners Li Xian Lin, Jing Cheng Jiang, Qiao Lin (Case Nos. 13-3695,13-4327).

Tiffany L. Walters, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent (Case No. 13-3695).

OIL, United States Department of Justice, Civil División, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent (Case Nos. 13-3695,13-4327).

Carlton Frederick Sheffield, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent (Case No. 13-4327)

PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges,

SUMMARY ORDER

These petitions challenge decisions of the BIA that affirmed decisions of Immigration Judges (“U”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under *703the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denied motions to remand in the first instance. The applicable standards of review are well established. *See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,*546 F.3d 138, 157-58, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008); *Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005).

Petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on claims that they fear persecution because they have violated China’s population control program with the birth of their children in the United States. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in *Jian Hui Shao,*we find no error in the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on the birth of their children. *See*546 F.3d at 158-72; *see also Paul v. Gonzales,*444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

Insofar as Petitioners’ motions to re-' mand were based on their practice of religion or Falun Gong in the United States, the BIA .did not err in finding that they failed to demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for relief. The Petitioners did not submit evidence that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely to become aware of, their practices. *See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,*528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); *see also Jian Hui Shao,*546 F.3d at 168.

For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are DENIED.
#### Spencer Stafford *versus*Martha Gold *et al.*Executors, &c. Same *versus*Same.

A demand due to the plaintiff as surviving partner of one firm, may be joined in the same action with a demand due to him as the surviving partner of another firm. Where two actions are brought at the same term of the court, upon demands which might have been joined, the plaintiff will recover the same costs as if he had joined the demands in one action.

The plaintiff, as the surviving partner of two distinct mercantile firms, commenced two actions of assumpsit, for different causes of action, against the defendants, at the same term of the Court of Common Pleas, both of which actions were brought up to this Court and determined in favor of the plaintiff.

*Hubbard*and *Bishop*contended,

that the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs in only one action, the *St.*1794, *c.*28, § 12, having provided, “ that where a plaintiff shall, at the same court, bring divers actions upon demands which might have been joined in one, he shall recover no more costs than in one action only.” To show that the plaintiff might have joined the two demands in one action, they cited 1 Chit. Pl. 200 ; *Hancock*v. *Haywood,*3 T. R. 433 ; *Slipper*v. *Stidstone,*5 T. R. 493, and 1 Esp. R. 47 ; *French*v. *Andrade,*6 T. R. 582.

*C. A. Dewey,*for the plaintiff.

*Per Curiam.*

It is settled that a surviving partner may join m the same action a demand due to the firm, and another due *543to himself in his own right.1 For the same reason, he may unite demands due to him as the surviving partner of two firms. Where the plaintiff sues era rattier droit, as executor or administrator, the case is different. The plaintiff will therefore tax full costs in one of the suits, whichsoever he may elect, and in the other he will tax such additional costs as would have accrued if the causes of action had been embraced by one suit.2

1

 See Collyer on Partnership, 399,436.

2

 See Revised Stat. c. 121, § 15.
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-83 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
EXHIBIT 35.2
                   SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
               RAAC SERIES 2006-SP4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
----

**ANNUAL      STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

**Pooling      and Servicing Agreement dated November 1, 2006 (the "Pooling and Servicing      Agreement") by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. as      depositor, Wachovia Bank N.A. as master servicer No.1, Midland Loan Services,      Inc. as master servicer No. 2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A as trustee, La Salle Bank      National Association as certificate administrator and LNR Partners, Inc. as      special servicer (the "Special Servicer")**

**CGCMT      2006-C5**

| 1.   | I                have reviewed the activities performed by the Special Servicer under                the                Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the period ending the end                of the                fiscal year 2006 (the “Reporting                Period”)                and the Special Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing                Agreement has been made under my supervision;                and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | To                the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer                has                fulfilled its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement                in all                material respects throughout the Reporting Period. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Sean WARNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6732

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 2017

Decided: November 15, 2017

Arthur Sean Warner, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Sean Warner seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Warner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability mil 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 Warner 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*
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350        (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the report of Dynegy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clint C. Freeland, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



Date: December 10, 2012

By:

/s/ CLINT C. FREELAND Clint C. Freeland Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05113]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Fire Protection Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Fire Protection 
Association (``NFPA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
additions or changes to its standards development activities. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, NFPA has provided 
an updated and current list of its standards development activities, 
related technical committee and conformity assessment activities. 
Information concerning NFPA regulations, technical committees, current 
standards, standards development and conformity assessment activities 
are publicly available at nfpa.org.
    On September 20, 2004, NFPA filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on October 21, 2004 (69 FR 61869).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 15, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 14, 2021 (86 FR 67082).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05113 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P