alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marina GRADINARU; Vitalie Osoianu, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1651

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: February 14, 2018

Joseph J. Rose, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kimberly A. Burdge, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

*168Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marina Gradinaru and her husband, derivative beneficiary Vitalie Osoianu, natives of the former Soviet Union and citizens of Moldova, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of Gradinaru’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcripts of Gradinaru’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012) — including the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding2 — and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief in this case, *see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Gradinaru,*(B.I.A. May 8, 2017). 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 DENIED*

1

. We lack jurisdiction to address Petitioners' challenges to the immigration judge’s denial of Gradinaru’s request for protection under the Convention Against Torture because Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Board. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); *Massis v. Mukasey,*549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).

2

. We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence, affording broad — though not unlimited — deference to the agency’s credibility findings. *Ilunga v. Holder,*777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015); *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 212

Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the European Union’s

ban of United States beef and the World Trade Organization’s ruling

concerning that ban.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1998

Mr. CHRISTENSEN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the European Union’s ban of United States beef and the World

Trade Organization’s ruling concerning that ban.

Whereas the European Union has banned imports of United

States beef treated with hormones since 1989;

Whereas 9 out of 10 United States cattle are treated with

growth promoting hormones;

Whereas growth promoting hormones have been deemed safe

by all countries that have reviewed the use of such hormones, including reviews by European Union scientists in

two separate studies;

Whereas since the implementation of the European Union

ban, United States beef producers have lost hundreds of

millions of dollars in exports;
2

•HCON 212 IH

Whereas the United States beef industry loses approximately

$250,000,000 in annual sales due to the ban;

Whereas the United States beef industry, the United States

Department of Agriculture, and the United States Trade

Representative have invested substantial resources to

comply with strict dispute settlement procedures of the

World Trade Organization;

Whereas the dispute settlement panel and the Appellate Body

of the World Trade Organization have ruled that the European Union’s ban of United States beef is not based on

sound science or supported by a risk assessment and is

therefore in violation of the World Trade Organization’s

Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures; and

Whereas noncompliance by the European Union regarding

the ban on United States beef threatens the integrity of

both the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures and the World Trade Organization as a dispute settlement body: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the United States expects the European

4 Union to immediately and completely comply with

5 the World Trade Organization’s ruling and grant

6 United States beef producers access to the European

7 market; and

8 (2) the United States Trade Representative

9 should take immediate action to open European

10 markets to United States beef producers in the event
3

•HCON 212 IH

1 the European Union fails to comply with the World

2 Trade Organization’s ruling.

Æ
# lnventoryExpertService**,...,,_..._.,~** ..**n"'"'••~...,.,..,** .... ,, .. ,_ ..**.,..,...,.,'"""''.,..._......~.,,_.,_~...,,** ...... 

### ....,..,l,.,..j••"·l'lolo•V."'.._,,_..,,

..... .,.,.,.,._....., • .._. __ ,.._.,_ ....**~....,..,..,...4,.,.,.~** 

### ... , ....... ,.....,........,.,.,, ..**,,...,~u,..** uo •II

...... • ,.,.,.._,._.., ••

- .. ,,_ .....**·~-** ........**~,.,.,,,,,.,,.,** ... .,,._..,., "''lo'.••r

.. .., "'

...**,....,.,.~** ..,.,., ,.. ,.. ...**,.-~** ....,_,,_ 

# Phone: 600-63-1·1 B-84, 

# 014-447-3670 Fax; 614·447·3747 

# E-mail: anawet'$@ca&.org 

# W®: 

# www.ean.e>rglpl'odU<M/cl!ontt 

# A dl\llEIIon or UIB American Chemical 

# -S(JC!ety
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Della Rayn LOCKLEAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4424

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*180PER CURIAM:

Della Rayn Locklear pleaded guilty to carjacking resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(3) (2012), and the district court sentenced her to 259 months in prison. On appeal, Locklear’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967),. certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Locklear was notified of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the record in this case and have found ho meritorious grounds for appeal. Before accepting Locklear’s guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and ensuring that Locklear’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. *See United States v. DeFusco,*949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court made no significant procedural error at sentencing, *see Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Locklear does not rebut our appellate presumption that her sentence is substantively reasonable. *See United States v. Louthian,*756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Locklear, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lock-lear requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Locklear.

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*
#### Hoda SAMUEL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-11374 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 29, 2018

Hoda Samuel, Pro Se

Lisa Robin Hasday, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

*209Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hoda Samuel, federal prisoner # 19252-097, appeals the dismissal of her Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). She challenges only the dismissal of her claim that federal employees injured her leg with a courtroom door on December 13, 2011; she abandons all other claims raised below. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

We review de novo the grant of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. *United States v. Renda Marine, Inc.,*667 F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir. 2012). In light of the record before us, including the Standard Form 95 submitted by Samuel to the Bureau of Prisons, Samuel fails to show that the district court erred by holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because she had failed to present the claim in question to the agency. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); *Cook v. United States,*978 F.2d 164, 165-66 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Max 24-hour Emissions

Emission PointMaximum 24-Hour Actual Emission Rate (lbs/day) Nox SO2 PM10 B-1 112 9417 1109 B-2 147 11644 1230 B-3 116 11596 1631 SF-1 0 0 547 SF-2 0 0 455 SF-3A 0 0 851 D-5.0 971 8323 1775 DF-1 0 0 81 DF-2 0 0 68 1346 40979 7746

Permit Limits (lbs/hr) - Excluded Certain Equipment

Emission Point Nox SO2 PM10 Exclude Rx A B-1 4.66 392.36 46.20 B-2 6.14 485.17 51.24 Exclude Rx 11 B-3 4.84 483.16 67.96 SF-1 22.80 SF-2 18.96 SF-3A 35.44 Exclude Dryer 6D-2.7 20.08 145.82 36.68 Exclude Dryers A and 5D-5.0 40.45 346.78 73.94 DF-1 3.36 DF-2 2.84 Exclude DF-3 2.92

Permit Limits (lbs/hr)

Nox SO2 PM10 B-1 6.21 523.15 61.60 B-2 6.14 485.17 51.24 B-3 6.81 680.51 95.72 SF-1 22.80 SF-2 18.96 SF-3A 35.44 D-2.7 20.08 145.82 36.68 D-5.0 67.42 577.96123.24 DF-1 3.36 DF-2 2.84 DF-3 2.92
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         249,174
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,676,577
<ALLOWANCES>                                   215,000
<INVENTORY>                                    1,584,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,000,619
<PP&E>                                         3,818,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,573,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,456,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,329,149
<BONDS>                                        4,274,888
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     783,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,456,034
<SALES>                                        19,865,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,865,601
<CGS>                                          17,502,949
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,502,949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,885,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             261,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                215,083
<INCOME-TAX>                                   24,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            191,083
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   191,083
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0




</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 297 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 297

            Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 1998

   Mr. Goss submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
            Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
    That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, 
June 25, 1998, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 
1998, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
at the close of business on Friday, June 26, 1998, Saturday, June 27, 
1998, or Sunday, June 28, 1998, pursuant to a motion made by the 
Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this concurrent 
resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, July 
6, 1998, or such time on that day as may be specified by the Majority 
Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                  <all>
```
KENNETH L. COBB

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1832

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed July 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Edward P. Nickinson, III , Judge

.

Kenneth L. Cobb , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant A ttorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT ITEM 31.2**

 

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

 

I, Bruce N. Warnercertify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB, Amendment No.1 of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.   The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee orregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 20, 2007 | /s/  Bruce N. Warner          |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Bruce  N. Warner              |
|                     | Chief  Financial Office       |
|                     | Principal  Accounting Officer |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 10.05
  CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT
 [Name of Executive]
[Address of Executive]
 
 Matrixx Company Section 11 th
 Agreement
 .
  .
 Section 6 Section 4 Section 5




---



##### 



Section 5
 Section 7
   .
  Section 3
 .
 Change of Control
 Exchange Act
 2




---



##### 



Incumbent Board
  .
 Good Reason
 .
 Cause
 3




---



##### 



Section 15
  Disability
 .
    4




---



##### 



.
  .
  .
  .
  5




---



##### 



.
  .
  .
 Rules AAA
 .
  .
  6




---



##### 



.
    Sincerely,MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC.By:Name:Its:
    Dated:SignatureName
 7
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,AS AMENDED AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Robert S. Herlin, ChiefExecutive Officer of Natural Gas Systems, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Natural Gas Systems, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectivenessof the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report anychange in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of Registrant’s Board of Directors:

 

a) All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 16, 2004 

 

 
|     | */s/ Robert S. Herlin*    |   |
|----------|---------------------------|--------|
|     | *Robert S. Herlin*        |
| * * | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7071

DARRELL L. GOSS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CHARLES WILLIAMS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 2:18

- cv - 02938

- BHH )

Submitted : October 14, 2021 Decided: October 19, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Darrell L. Goss , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darrell L. Goss seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
app ealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional r ight. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goss has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appea lability 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