alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Conrad R. PATTERSON, Petitioner.

No. 17-2175

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

Conrad R. Patterson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHÉDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Conrad R. Patterson has filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking release from jail and dismissal of an indictment issued in Wake County, North Carolina. We ordinarily decline to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case presents no reason to depart from *194this practice. Because Patterson appears to be awaiting trial in Wake County and has failed to exhaust the remedies available in the North Carolina courts, we conclude that the interests of justice would not be served by transferring this case to the district court. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 2241(b) (2012). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. 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*
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 131

Providing for notification to the House of Representatives of the election

of Secretary of the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Mr. NICKLES (for Mr. DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for notification to the House of Representatives

of the election of Secretary of the Senate.

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives be noti2 fied of the election of the Honorable Kelly D. Johnston,

3 of Oklahoma, as Secretary of the Senate.

Æ
# Official Journal C 299/29 N

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 299 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4829 November 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 299

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4829 November 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2005/C 299/1 | Report by the external auditor on the Court of Auditors’ accounts for the financial year 2004 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Auditors

2005/C 299/1

Report by the external auditor on the Court of Auditors’ accounts for the financial year 2004

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   By:
    
    /s/
Amir Bassan-EskenaziName:
    
    Amir Bassan-EskenaziTitle:
    
    President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)
   By:
    
    /s/
Maurice CastonguayName:
    
    Maurice CastonguayTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
##### 



BYLAWS
OF
THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
 PREAMBLE
  ARTICLE I
Board of Directors
 Section 1.1 Number; Selection of Chairman
 Section 1.2 Regular Meetings
 Section 1.3 Special Meetings
 Section 1.4 Remote Attendance at Meetings




---



##### 



Section 1.5 Quorum; Vote Required for Action
 Section 1.6 Organization
 Section 1.7 Notational Approvals by Individual Directors
 Section 1.8 Powers
 Section 1.9 Compensation of Board Members
 2




---



##### 



ARTICLE II  Committees
 Section 2.1 Committees
 Section 2.2 Committee Rules
 ARTICLE III  Officers
 Section 3.1 Chief Executive Officer; Officers; Selection; Qualifications; Resignation;
Vacancies
 Section 3.2 Authorities and Duties of Chief Executive Officer
 Section 3.3 Compensation 3
        ARTICLE IV  Indemnification
 Section 4.1 Right to Indemnification
 Section 4.2 Payment of Expenses
 Section 4.3 Other Sources
 4




---



##### 



Section 4.4 Amendment or Repeal
 Section 4.5 Other Indemnification and Prepayment of Expenses
 Section 4.6 Indemnification Contracts
 Section 4.7 Effect of Amendment
 Section 4.8 Insurance
 Section 4.9 Savings Clause
 ARTICLE V
Miscellaneous
 Section 5.1 Fiscal Year
 5




---



##### 



Section 5.2 Seal
 Section 5.3 Conflict-of-Interest Policy
 Section 5.4 Form of Records
 Section 5.5 Reliance Upon Books and Records
 Section 5.6 TVA Act Governs
 Section 5.7 Severability
 Section 5.8 Amendments
 6
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lino HERNANDEZ-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40205 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lino Hernandez-Benitez, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lino Hernandez-Benitez 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). Hernandez-Benitez has filed a motion for the appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hemandez-Benitez’s motion, We *244concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. To the extent Hernandez-Benitez asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of the claim; we therefore decline to consider it without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

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. Hernandez-Benitez’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
No. D-2640.

#### In re Disbarment of Mardirosian.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 932.]
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Golden Elephant Glass Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Lin Tan, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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.

January 19, 2011

/S/ Lin
TanLin TanChief Executive Officer and
President(Principal Executive Officer)

---
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 16 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Ken ne th R. McGee
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 2, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Octo be r 5, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ken ne th McGe e di rect ly ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce aft er pl ead in g gu il ty to a fir earm of fen se pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t th at co nt ai ne d an a p p e a l waiv er. His co un se l ha s m ov ed fo r le av e to wit hd raw an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And er s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6U

. S

. 73 8 (1 96 7) , arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g an en ha nc em e n t 1

un de r th e Gui de li ne s.
Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e waiv e r i s v a li d, ap pl ic ab le , an d

en fo rcea bl e. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Sc ot t , 62 7 F.3d 70 2, 70 4 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ) ( de no vo
rev ie w o f v al id it y an d ap pl ic ab il it y of ap pe al waiv er); Uni te d St at es v. And is , 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ) (ap pe al waiv er wil l be en f o rced if th e
a p p e a l fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of a waiv er, if de fen da nt kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt a r i l y
en te r e d i n t o th e pl ea ag reem en t an d waiv er, an d if en fo rci ng th e waiv er wou ld no t
res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce). Hav i n g i nd ep en de nt ly rev ie wed th e reco rd pu rs ua nt to Pen so n v. Ohi o , 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es ot he r th an th e sc op e of th e ap pe al waiv er. Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s t hi s ap pe al an d gra nt
co un se l l eav e to wit hd raw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Bet h Ph il li ps , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f o r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-
<PAGE>
     
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                                       
                          INVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
        STATEMENT REGARDING CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   THREE MONTHS                   NINE MONTHS
                                                                      ENDED                          ENDED
                                                                   SEPTEMBER 30,                 SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                1997           1996           1997           1996
                                                                ----           ----           ----           ----
<S>                                                       <C>             <C>            <C>            <C>
Net income (loss)                                            $  1,988       $  (417)        $ 3,513       $(4,128)
                                                             --------       -------         -------       -------
                                                             --------       -------         -------       -------

Shares used in per share calculations:
   Common Stock                                                11,882         9,112          10,890         4,762
   Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options 
     and warrants                                                 971            --           1,053           805
   Convertible Preferred Stock                                     --            --              --         2,714
                                                             --------       -------         -------       -------
Shares used in per share calculations                          12,853         9,112          11,943         8,281
                                                             --------       -------         -------       -------
                                                             --------       -------         -------       -------

Net income (loss) per share                                  $   0.15       $ (0.05)        $  0.29       $ (0.50)
                                                             --------       -------         -------       -------
                                                             --------       -------         -------       -------

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2425

WEN CAI MU,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. (A-77-354-658)

Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 18, 2005

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, OFFICE OF

IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.; David W. Harder, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Wen Cai Mu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic

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

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its

denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mu contends that

his motion to reconsider provided the Board with new legal

arguments. See Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 405 n.2 (BIA

1991) (“A motion to reconsider ‘is a request that the Board

reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a

change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which

was overlooked, while [a] motion to reopen is usually based upon

new evidence or a change in factual circumstances.’").

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider

for an abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004);

Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). A motion to

reconsider asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier

decision. The motion must “state the reasons for the motion by

specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision

and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(b)(1). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a

deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay

works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to
- 3 -

remain in the United States.” INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323

(1992).

We have reviewed the administrative record and the

Board’s decision and conclude the Board did not abuse its

discretion when it denied Mu’s motion to reconsider. Accordingly,

we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7246** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DWAYNE MCFADDEN , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the D istrict of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4:04

- cr - 00564

- TLW

- 1; 4:07

- cv - 70091

- TLW )

Submitted : November 18, 2010 Decided: December 2, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Dwayne McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham , Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: Dwayne McFadden seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion
. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United S tates or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed . R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T] he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement .” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was e ntered on the docket

on October 20, 2009 . The notice of appeal was filed on August 1 1 , 2010
. *

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the no tice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (1) ; Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988). Because McFadden failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented3 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 694 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 694

   To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing hazardous 
humanitarian services in West Africa to combat the spread of the Ebola 
virus outbreak shall be entitled to tax benefits in the same manner as 
           if such services were performed in a combat zone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2015

   Mr. O'Rourke (for himself, Mr. Carter of Texas, and Mr. Williams) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing hazardous 
humanitarian services in West Africa to combat the spread of the Ebola 
virus outbreak shall be entitled to tax benefits in the same manner as 
           if such services were performed in a combat zone.

    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 ``Operation United Assistance Tax 
Exclusion Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN HAZARDOUS HUMANITARIAN SERVICE AS COMBAT 
              ZONE SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF THE COMBAT ZONE COMPENSATION 
              EXCLUSION.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 112 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, service by a qualified member of the Armed Forces 
during Operation United Assistance shall be treated as service in a 
combat zone in the same manner as if the President of the United States 
had by Executive order designated the Ebola virus disease outbreak area 
as an area of combat under section 112(c)(2) of such Code.
    (b) Definitions.--
            (1) Qualified member of the armed forces.--The term 
        ``qualified member of the Armed Forces'' means a member of the 
        Armed Forces serving in Operation United Assistance who is 
        required to undergo a program of not less than 21 days of 
        controlled monitoring in a controlled monitoring area upon the 
        individual's return from the Ebola virus disease outbreak area.
            (2) Operation united assistance.--The term ``Operation 
        United Assistance'' means the mission beginning in September 
        2014 in the Ebola virus disease outbreak area.
            (3) Ebola virus disease outbreak area.--The term ``Ebola 
        virus disease outbreak area'' means Liberia, Sierra Leone, and 
        Guinea, and any other region designated by the Centers for 
        Disease Control and Prevention as experiencing a widespread 
        Ebola virus disease outbreak as of the date of the enactment of 
        this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 130

Concerning the situation in Kenya.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 29, 1997

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concerning the situation in Kenya.

Whereas on July 7, 1997, a large and violent confrontation

occurred in Kenya when police stormed Nairobi’s AllSaints Cathedral and attacked those present at a prayer

meeting;

Whereas prodemocracy activists throughout Kenya demonstrated for reform of Kenya’s constitution and the repeal of colonial laws;

Whereas the bloody suppression of the constitutional reform

rallies and their aftermath resulted in deaths and scores

of injuries; and

Whereas colonial laws have given Kenyan President Daniel

Arap Moi sweeping powers to suppress political opponents throughout his 19-year rule: Now, therefore, be it
2

HCON 130 IH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes and commends those Kenyans

4 who have demonstrated their love of peace, law, and

5 order;

6 (2) recognizes President Moi’s initial response

7 to domestic and international pressure to allow

8 meaningful constitutional reform through his recent

9 meetings with opposition church leaders and his de10 cision to grant permits for opposition rallies;

11 (3) condemns those who are inciting others to

12 violence, looting, and destroying property;

13 (4) urges an immediate cessation to the violence

14 in Kenya from all parties;

15 (5) urges the Government of Kenya to take all

16 necessary and lawful steps to avoid more violence in

17 the future;

18 (6) calls for the creation of a unified

19 prodemocracy movement to work toward implement20 ing constitutional, statutory, and administrative re21 forms;

22 (7) urges rapid progress toward conducting free

23 and fair elections; and

24 (8) urges the United States Government and

25 the international community to continue to exert
3

HCON 130 IH

1 pressure on the Government of Kenya to ensure a

2 lasting and committed transition to democracy.

Æ
# C_2018091EN.01000101.xml

| 9.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2016-2017 SESSION

Sittings of 2 and 3 June 2016

The Minutes of this session have been published in

  OJ C 235, 20.7.2017
  .

The Minutes of this session have been published in

OJ C 235, 20.7.2017

TEXTS ADOPTED

Sitting of 28 June 2016

The Minutes of this session have been published in

  OJ C 243, 27.7.2017
  .

The Minutes of this session have been published in

OJ C 243, 27.7.2017

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
# Official Journal C 87A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.087.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 87A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 531 April 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.087.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 87A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 531 April 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 087A/01 | Notice of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2010/C 087A/01

Notice of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN