alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Interim Decision #1914 

MATTER OF GUERRA 

In Bond Proceedings 

A-13460457 

Decided by Board October 17, 1968 

The Board of Immigration Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal 

from a bond determination under 8 CFR 242.2(b), where the alien is 

being held in custody after having failed to appear for deportation. 

ON BEHALF or RESPONDENT: Constantine N. Bangles, Esquire 

69 west Washington Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(Memorandum filed) 

This appeal takes issue with the actions of the District Director in issuing a warrant on August 8, 1968 for the arrest and 

detention of the alien and requiring the alien to be released 

under bond in the amount of $3,500. 

On June 24, 1968 the alien, native of Libya and citizen of Italy, 

was the subject of deportation proceedings brought under section 

241(a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The respondent requested the privilege of voluntary departure which was denied by the special inquiry officer on the finding that the respondent was not a person of good moral character. No appeal was 

taken from those findings. Upon the decision of the special inquiry officer finding that the respondent should be deported, the 

Immigration Service served upon the respondent notice on Form 

1-294 as to the country to which deportation had been directed 

and on August 2, 1968 the Service further notified the respondent 

of the departure arrangements made for his deportation. Failing 

to surrender himself for deportation, the instant warrant of deportation was issued and on September 23, 1968 the alien was 

brought into the custody of the Service. 

The attorney for the alien states that the requirement of a 

bond in the amount of $3,500 or the requirement of a bond for 

the release of said alien is unreasonable, inequitable and is excessive. Counsel for the alien further requested the alien's release on 

40 
Interim Decision #1914 

his recognizance and for other and further relief as the Board of 

Immigration Appeals may see fit to grant herein. 

We are called upon to decide whether we have jurisdiction to 

accept the appeal in the instant matter. Pursuant to S CPR 

242.2(b), a District Director ... "May exercise the authority ... 

to continue or detain an alien in, or release him from, custody, to 

determine whether an alien shall be released under bond, and the 

amount thereof if any ... The alien may appeal to the Board of 

Immigration Appeals from any such determination. The foregoing provisions concerning notice, reporting and appeal shall not 

apply when the Service notifies the alien that it is ready to execute the prder of deportation and takes him into custody for that 

purpose." (Emphasis supplied.) The warrant of arrest and the 

subsequent confinement came after the alien had failed to appear 

for deportation and as a consequence we are prohibited from assuming jurisdiction in the instant matter. 

ORDER: it is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

41
#### Samuel DODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17264

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Samuel Dodson, Pro Se

D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas) Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

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 **

Samuel Dodson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. *Foley v. Biter,*793 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2016), We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dodson’s motion for relief because Dodson failed to show “extraordinary circumstances prevented [him] from timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” *Greenawalt v. Stewart,*105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 42

To make minority party appointments to a Senate committee under paragraph

3(c) of rule XXV for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 11 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

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

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To make minority party appointments to a Senate committee

under paragraph 3(c) of rule XXV for the One Hundred

Fourth Congress.

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the mi2 nority party’s membership on the Ethics Committee for

3 the One Hundred Fourth Congress, or until their succes4 sors are chosen:

5 SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS: Mr. Bryan, vice

6 chair, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Dorgan.

Æ
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            GATEWAY BANCSHARES, INC.
          CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (unaudited)

The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and diluted earnings
per common share for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003.




                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     March 31,   March 31,
                                                        2004        2003
                                                     ----------  ----------
<S>                                                  <C>         <C>

Basic net income                                     $  442,648  $  391,181
                                                     ==========  ==========

Basic earnings on common shares                      $  442,648  $  391,181
                                                     ==========  ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic       652,638     681,758
                                                     ==========  ==========

Basic earnings per common share                      $     0.68  $     0.57
                                                     ==========  ==========

Basic net income per common share                    $     0.68  $     0.57
                                                     ==========  ==========

Diluted net income                                   $  442,648  $  391,181
                                                     ==========  ==========

Diluted earnings on common shares                    $  442,648  $  391,181
                                                     ==========  ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted     711,073     695,116
                                                     ==========  ==========

Diluted earnings per common share                    $     0.62  $     0.56
                                                     ==========  ==========

Diluted net income per common share                  $     0.62  $     0.56
                                                     ==========  ==========
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 16465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06141]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-704-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement 
Filing--Morgan Stanley to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220316-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-705-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement 
Filing--Repsol Energy to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220316-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-706-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements 
Filing--Six One Commodities Vega LLC to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220316-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06141 Filed 3-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Order entered May 20, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00568-CV

IN THE MATTER OF M.L., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JD-71935-W

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s May 15, 2013 motion regarding sealed records. 

Appellant’s counsel, Dean Swanda, seeks to check out both the sealed clerk’s record and sealed 

reporter’s record. In the motion, appellant informs the Court that we did not allow Mr. Swanda’s 

assistant to check out the sealed records. This Court allows sealed records to be checked out 

only by the attorney of record. We GRANT appellant’s motion to allow the records to be 

checked out by Dean Swanda, appellant’s attorney of record.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
June 25, 2015

MEMORANDUM

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meeting

From: Martha Keating

To: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2008

- 0699

On June 1 8 , 2015, representatives of EPA attended a meeting with representatives of the

American Petroleum Institute

. The meeting was held by videoconference. Attendees discussed

the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards rulemaking

. API provided a 1

- pager for the

meeting and is attached

.

The following is a list of attendees and their affiliation :

Name Affiliation

Dana Wo od BP

Amy Trojecki BP

Mara Zimmerman API

Puneet Verma Chevron

Sherry Hesselbein MPC

Howard Feldman API

Khary Cauthen API

Erin Tullos XOM

Ammie Bachman XOM

Marnie Funk Shell

Al Collins Oxy

Caroline E PGG

Tyler Kruzich CVX

R o bert Nolan Exxon Mobile

Guy Beeman Marathon Petroleum

Janet McCabe EPA Office of Air and Radiation

Pamela Franklin EPA/Office of Atmospheric Programs

Steve Page EPA /Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(OAQPS)

Mike Koerber EPA/OAQPS

Erika Sasser EPA/OAQPS

Karen Wesson EPA/OAQPS

Darryl Weatherhead EPA/ OAQPS
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Oak Valley Acquisition Corporation
 (the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: March 31, 2015
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 255

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the

Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 255

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 255 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES

2 ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

3 The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Associa4 tion (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘As5 sociation’’) shall be permitted to sponsor a public event,

6 soap box derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on July 11,

7 1998, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House

8 of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Ad9 ministration of the Senate may jointly designate.

10 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

11 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall

12 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged

13 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi14 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and

15 the Capitol Police Board; except that the Association shall

16 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities

17 incident to all activities associated with the event.

18 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

19 For the purposes of this resolution, the Association

20 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject

21 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage,

22 sound amplification devices, and other related structures

23 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car24 ried out under this resolution.
3

•HCON 255 EH

1 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

2 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

3 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar4 rangements that may be required to carry out the event

5 under this resolution.

6 SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS.

7 Nothing in this resolution may be construed to waive

8 the applicability of the prohibitions established by section

9 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat.

10 718), concerning sales, displays, and solicitations on the

11 Capitol Grounds.

Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Frank Allen WILLIAMS Petitioner-Appellant v. Darin YOUNG, Warden; Marty Jackley Respondents-Appellees

No. 16-4098

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 16, 2018

Filed: January 29, 2018

Frank Allen Williams, Pro Se

Paul Sanford Swedlund, Attorney General’s Office, Pierre, SD, for Respondents-Appellees

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and . COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Frank Williams appeals the district court’s order that dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition due to procedural default. Upon de novo review, this court reverses and remands for further proceedings.

The state court granted habeas relief to Williams and vacated his 50-year prison sentence. After the court reimposed the 50-year sentence, Williams appealed, arguing that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment clause; the South Dakota Supreme *275Court summarily affirmed. Williams then filed a state habeas petition claiming counsel was ineffective; relief was denied, and Williams did not appeal.

In his section 2254 petition, Williams claimed his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and counsel was ineffective in several instances. The State argued only that the petition was untimely, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal on that basis. The district court found the petition was timely, but sua sponte dismissed the petition on the basis of procedural default. This court granted a certificate of appealability as to whether the ineffective-assistance and Eighth Amendment claims were procedurally defaulted.

Upon careful de novo review, this court finds that the district court should have given the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions on procedural default before dismissing on that basis. See Dansby v. Hobbs, 766 F.3d 809, 824 (8th Cir. 2014) (remanding claim dismissed based on procedural default where parties were not afforded adequate notice and opportunity to be heard on procedur-ál-default question); Frasier v. Maschner, 304 F.3d 815, 817 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). See generally Garrison v. Burt, 637 F.3d 849, 853 (8th Cir. 2011) (petitioner who raises constitutional claim on full round of direct review need not also avail himself of post-conviction process to satisfy exhaustion requirement for that claim).

Accordingly, this court vacates the judgment, and remands to the district court for further proceedings. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Redwood Valley Acquisition Corporation
 (the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: March 31, 2015
|WELLS
    FARGO(logo) | Commercial
    Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Floor
401 South Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference
is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September
1, 2014, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as General Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB,
as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C22 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized
terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel
Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the
General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, (the “Reporting Period”),
and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.



/s/ Daniel Bober



---

Daniel Bober

Executive
Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank







Together we’ll
go far

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip HARDY, a/k/a Beans, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7615

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Phillip Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Hardy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (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 Hardy 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*