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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 9

Notifying the President of the United States of the election of the Secretary

of the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. DOLE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Notifying the President of the United States of the election

of the Secretary of the Senate.

1 Resolved, That the President of the United States be

2 notified of the election of the Honorable Sheila P. Burke,

3 of California, as Secretary of the Senate.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1


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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Bioscience (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael L. Krall, Chief Executive Officer certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

December 15, 2004                /s/ Michael L. Krall
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Michael L. Krall
                                 Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### Ivonne Maribel Bajana CAICEDO, Aka Jessica Giraldo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.

16-3977

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 31, 2018

FOR PETITIONER: Shauky Michael Musa-Obregon, White Plains, New York

FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Timothy G. Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

PRESENT: Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ivonne Maribel Bajana Caice-do (“Caicedo”) seeks review of an October 31, 2016 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to remand based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and affirming an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal. *In re Ivonne Maribel Bajana Caicedo,*No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2016), *aff'g*No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 15, 2015). Caicedo argues that the BIA erred when it ruled that she failed-to follow the procedural requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*related to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions *de novo. Chen v. Gonzales,*417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). *Lazada*mandates *41that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must be supported by 1) an affidavit detailing the agreement between the applicant and former counsel; 2) evidence that notice was given to former counsel of the allegations, with adequate time for response; and 3) if a violation of ethical or legal responsibilities is claimed, a statement as to whether the applicant has filed a complaint regarding counsel’s conduct with the appropriate disciplinary authorities or, if not, a statement why the applicant has not done so. *Garcia-Martinez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,*448 F.3d 511, 512 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006).

The BIA ruled that Caicedo failed to comply with the procedures set forth in *Lozada,*finding, among other things, that she did not “set forth in detail the agreement with former counsel concerning what action would be taken and what counsel did or did not represent in this regard,” and failed to submit sufficient evidence that she notified her prior counsel. Upon review of the record, we agree that Caice-do failed to provide sufficient information regarding the agreement with former counsel regarding what action would be taken. Since we conclude that Caicedo failed to comply with the first *Lozada*requirement, we need not reach the other elements of her claim.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 52002DC0434

**Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Sapard annual report - Year 2001  /* COM/2002/0434 final */****

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - SAPARD ANNUAL REPORT - Year 2001

>TABLE POSITION>
#### William Leon BURNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain CANNING; Sergeant Fisher; Captain Nance; Major Tucker; Sergeant Burrison; David M. Tatarsky, Defendants-Appellees, and Lieutenant Gilbreath; Corporal Houser, Defendants.

No. 17-7382

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

William Leon Burnett, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher R. Antley, DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Leon Burnett appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of certain Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. *Burnett v. Canning,*No. 9:16-cv-02742-MGL, 2017 WL 3484483 (D.S.C. Aug. 14 & Sept. 7, 2017); *see also Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC,*599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion); *Whisenant v. Yuam,*739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (discussing appointment of counsel in civil actions), *abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa,*490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989). We deny Burnett’s motion for counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            7401
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              30
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         111,869
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           112,032
<LOANS>                                        442,632
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 578,142
<DEPOSITS>                                     462,519
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,350
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,251
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,991
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,853
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 578,142
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,760
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,646
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    86
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,492
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,929
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,553
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,939
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       25
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,476
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,882
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.80
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,480
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,655
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,196
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      199
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,024
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               313
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            711
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANDREW COMO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-95-495, CA-97-3477-7-20)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Como, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Como seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Como’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Como, Nos. CR-95-495; CA-97-3477-7-20 (D.S.C. Mar. 4,

1998). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2046

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALLEGHANY COUNTY,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONNIE T. KERN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:21-cv-00471-TTC)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnie T. Kern, Appellant Pro Se. Travis Stuart Andrews, Jim H. Guynn, Jr., GUYNN 

WADDELL CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donnie T. Kern seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding the case to the 

state court from which it was removed. The district court remanded the case because it 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, an order remanding a case to the state court 

from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see 28 

U.S.C. § 1442 (exception for cases involving “[f]ederal officers or agencies sued or 

prosecuted”); 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (exception for cases involving “[c]ivil rights cases”). The 

Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] 

§ 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from 

review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995); 

see Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[A] district court may remand a case 

sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, and such an order is not 

reviewable.”) (citations omitted)).

The district court remanded the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

We, therefore, are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. See Doe, 819 F.3d at 

66. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Kern’s motion 

to accelerate case processing, to schedule oral argument, and for injunctive or other relief. 

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 10.11

SETTLEMENT STATEMENT

This Settlement Statement (this "Statement") is entered into in connection with the closing of the transactions contemplated by that certain Contribution
Agreement dated as of November 20, 2000 between USA Networks, Inc. ("USAi") and Ticketmaster Online-Citysearch, Inc. ("TMCS") (the "Agreement"). All capitalized terms used herein
without definition have the definition provided to them in the Agreement.

USAi
and TMCS agree that the spreadsheet attached hereto as Exhibit A reflects the estimated obligations of USAi and TMCS under Section 5.11 of the Agreement. In
particular, the parties agree as follows as of the Closing:

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Settlement Statement as of the 31st day of January, 2001:

|USA Networks, Inc. |  | Ticketmaster Online Citysearch, Inc.
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------
|By:                |  | /s/ [Illegible]                     
|                   |  |                                     

---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Settlement Statement as of the 31st day of January, 2001:

|USA Networks, Inc. |  | Ticketmaster Online Citysearch, Inc.
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------
|By:                |  |                                     

---

QuickLinks
Order entered June 19 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00261 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00262 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00263 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00 2 64 - CR MARQUIS OBRIAN WHITE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 29 1st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F12 - 56960 - U , F1 2 - 57100 - U, F12 - 71366 - U, F1 2 - 71367 - U 

### O RDER The Court REINSTATE S the appeals. On May 13, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s r ecord had not been filed. On June 17, 2013, we received the reporter’s record. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE the May 13, 2013 order. Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.<TABLE> <S> <C><ARTICLE>    5<S>                                                      <C><PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS<PERIOD-START><FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Dec-31-2000<PERIOD-END>                                     Sep-30-2000<CASH>                                             4,316,502<SECURITIES>                                               0<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,410,565<ALLOWANCES>                                          90,506<INVENTORY>                                        4,388,164<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  11,218,232<PP&E>                                             5,667,694<DEPRECIATION>                                     2,051,572<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    15,676,630<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2,123,442<BONDS>                                                    0<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0<PREFERRED>                                                0<COMMON>                                          30,459,362<OTHER-SE>                                      (17,603,641)<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      15,676,630<SALES>                                            8,378,428<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   8,378,428<CGS>                                              4,873,424<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      9,370,234<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   429,814<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (6,058,233)<INCOME-TAX>                                           8,585<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0<DISCONTINUED>                                             0<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0<CHANGES>                                                  0<NET-INCOME>                                     (4,890,168)<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.55)<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.55)</TABLE>
#### Lance REBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold M. BYRNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15242

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*427Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 28, 2017

Lance Reberger, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Lance Reber-ger appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee, after denying Reberger’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on the basis that Reberger has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriffs Dep’t,*833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Reberger’s motion to proceed IFP because at the time Reberger filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as strikes, and he did not plausibly allege that he was “upder imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *Andrews v. Cervantes,*493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reberger’s motion for an extension because Reberger failed to demonstrate good cause. *See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,*975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and “good cause” requirement for modifying a scheduling order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reberger’s motion to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. *See Chappel v. Lab Corp. of Am.,*232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district, court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend if amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reberger’s motion for reconsideration because Reberger failed to establish any basis for such relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lee FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7550

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

*221Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, Jill Westmore-land Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking relief from the denial of his 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); *see Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004), *abrogated on other grounds by United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Foster has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to address Foster’s Rule 60(b) motion on its merits, as the motion was the functional equivalent of an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus petition); *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Foster remains free, however, to pursue the legal issues identified in his Rule 60(b) motion in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2012). 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*