alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1119

HAYAT IBRAHIM TUKUYE, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-281-725) Submitted: June 27, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, ESQUIRE, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert E. Maher, Jr., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Hayat Ibrahim Tukuye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s decision, which denied her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In her petition for review, Tukuye first argues that the Board erred in finding that she failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she filed her asylum application within one year of her arrival in the United States. We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000), even in light of the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. SeeAlmuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Tukuye’s asylum claim. Tukuye also contends that the Board and immigration judge erred in denying her request for withholding of removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that Tukuye failed to- 3 - make the requisite showing before the immigration court. We therefore uphold the denial of her request for withholding of removal. We also find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Tukuye failed to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). We find that Tukuye failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. 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
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


**18 U.S.C. 1350,**


**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In connection with the quarterly report of 649.com Inc. on form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Glusing, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





The Report fully complies 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|August 5, 2004 |  | */s/ Mark Glusing*              
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------
|(Date)         |  | Mark Glusing
President, Director
1

Meeting on May 13, 2011 with GenOn Energy to Discuss Portland Generating Station CAA Section 126 Proposal Philadelphia, PA; 10:00

– 11:30 am, via video link with Region 2 and RTP List of Attendees: In Philadelphia: Donna Mastro, EPA Region3 Richard Killian, EPA Region 3 Tim L eon - Guerro , EPA Region 3 Diana Esher, EPA Region 3 Steve Davies, GenOn Walter Stone, GenOn Debra Jezouit, Baker Botts Keith Schmidt, GenOn Bob Paine. AECOM By Video Conference: Region 2: Bill Baker, Bob Kelley , Flaire Mills, Ray Werner, Ken Fradkin, Rick Ruvo, Mary McHale, OAQPS: Gobeail McKinley , Todd Hawes, Brian Timin, Rhea Jones By Telephone: OGC: Sonja Rodman Region 2: Annamaria Coulter, Henry Feingersh, OAR: Michael L ing, Bill Stevens, Nick Hutson PADEP: Joyce Epps (PADEP A ir Director), Krish Ramamurthy , Bo Reiley, Dean VanOrden2

Topics of Discussion:

Timing of the final rule and possibly s yn chronizing it with the utility MACT compliance dates Timing of the 90 day

commitment for a single, defined strategy for compliance Requirements to meet interim compliance limits and flexibility for alternative solutions based on technological, economic, and supplemental data (from pilot coal burning studies, for example) Specific technology , operating load, and modeling options for re med y Discussion of First 126 Petition from NJ and Modeling issues Options and engineering and economic challenges of using a different coal with lower sulfur content Modeling analy sis used to support the proposal
Alexander QUINTERO-CARDENAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-691

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

Friends of East Hampton Airport, Inc. et al., 

### Complainant,


### v. FAA Docket No. 16· 15

-02 Town of East Hampton, NY Respondent.

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above

referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings, 

### 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, Section 16.ll(a), the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to May 1 9,2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case .



### cting Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February

# ~ 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail , postage paid) , a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension of Time to May 19 , 20 1 6, for FAA Docket 1 6- 1 5-02 addressed to: Complainant Leonard D. Kirsch Shelley A. Ewalt McB reen & Kopko 500 N. Broadway , Suite 129 Jericho, NY 11753 lkirschCCl>, mklawnyc.com sewalt@mklawnyc.com Counsel for Respondent Elizabeth Vail Town Attorney Town of East Hampton 1 59 Pantigo Road East Hampton , NY 11937 EVail@EHamptonNY.Gov W. Eric Pil sk Catherine van Heuven Kaplan Kirsch 

### & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 epilsk@kapl ankirsch.com cvan heu ven@kaplankirsch.com Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings D ocket FAA Airport Comp li ance D ivision (A CO-l 00) FAA Eastern Regional Office (AEA-600)

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis
Scott BEHNKE; Joanne Behnke; Wilderness Lake Preserve Homeowners Association, Inc.; Duane Thompson and Kathryn Thompson, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-WFHE3, Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-WFHE3, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3036

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 5, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2976)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - california(1)

## By Year

Historical        March 8, 2018        Location of maximum land subsidence in U.S. Levels at 1925 and 1977.
Keith BRADLEY and Priscilla Bradley, Appellants, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3764

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Mario DEFELL

NO. 2018-KK-1142

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant and would reinstate ruling of trial court.
From: YOUNAN, JEAN-CLAUDE

To: Flanders, Phillip

Cc: Jordan, Ronald; Thomas Finseth; EFFINGER, THOMAS N; SHIER, DARRELL; HAMILTON, J. HAGOOD JR

Subject: RE: Data request for Wateree Station

Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:50:38 PM

Attachments: image003.png

Philip

I am following up on my voice messages to you regarding an extension for the Nov 21,

2014, deadline identified in EPA’s letter emailed to us on Nov 5, 2014. Per our discussions

with you last week, we (SCANA and EPRI) are still in the process of compiling the data and

drafting the final report. As you know, SCANA is working closely with EPRI to expedite the

process so that SCANA can provide complete responses to EPA’s data request as soon as

possible. EPRI’s expedited timeline for completion of the report and providing to SCANA is

Dec 8, 2014. Therefore, SCANA is requesting a 3 week extension to the deadline until Dec

12, 2014.

We look forward to working with you.

Thanks

Jean-Claude

From: Flanders, Phillip [Flanders.Phillip@epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 11:24 AM

To: EFFINGER, THOMAS N

Cc: YOUNAN, JEAN-CLAUDE; Jordan, Ronald; Thomas Finseth

Subject: Data request for Wateree Station

***This is an EXTERNAL email. Please do not click on a link or open any attachments

unless you are confident it is from a trusted source.

Dear Mr. Effinger,

I am sending a letter requesting information about pilot testing at Wateree Station. The letter also

asks SCANA to identify pilot testing at other plants. Please be sure to let me know if you have any

questions about the information EPA is requesting. We can also send a hard copy of the letter to

you.

Thank you,

Phillip Flanders, Ph.D.

Environmental Engineer
Engineering and Analysis Division

Office of Science and Technology

Office of Water

Mail Code 4303T

(202) 566-8323
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**PROXIM CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

As ofthe date hereof, I, Michael D. Angel, Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of Proxim Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of the Company on Form10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 1, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. This writtenstatement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anexhibit accompanying such Report and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.
|               | /s/  MICHAEL D. ANGEL    |
|--------------------|-------------------------------|
|               | Michael D. Angel              |
|               | Executive Vice President and  |
|               | Chief Financial Officer       |
|               | (Principal Financial Officer) |
| Date: May 11, 2005 |                          |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 7 Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code In connection with the report of InterOil Corporation (the Company) on the Form 40-F for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Phil E. Mulacek, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in the Report. /s/ Phil E. MulacekPhil E. MulacekChairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and
President Date: March 31, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         250,838
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  128,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,288
<PP&E>                                          25,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 399,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          396,575
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           782
<OTHER-SE>                                    (31,227)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   399,069
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,104,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,113,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,113,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,113,721)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5888 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5888

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 200 Westport Road in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``Nutterville 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2014

 Mr. Cleaver introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 200 Westport Road in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``Nutterville 
                        Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NUTTERVILLE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 200 Westport Road in Kansas City, Missouri, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Nutterville Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Nutterville Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




I,
      John
      Mueller, Chief Financial Officer of Genius Products, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do
      hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
      States Code that:




(1)
      the
      Registrant's Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period
      ended
      March 31, 2006 (the “Report”), to which this statement is filed as an exhibit,
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.





Dated:
                September 26, 2007
            
            By:
            /s/
                John MuellerJohn
                Mueller
              Chief
                Financial Officer
# C_2020100EN.01000401.xml

| 27.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9729 – Bouygues Telecom/Phoenix Tower International/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 100/04)

On 26 February 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9729. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9729. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
JULIO C. CASAS,
Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent

______________________

2023

- 1660

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DA

- 0752

- 17

- 0182

- I

- 1.

______________________

Before L OURIE
, H UGHES , and C UNNINGHAM
, Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

On March 22, 2023, this court received Julio C. Casas’spetition for review from the January 19, 2023, final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Having considered the parties’ responses to this court’s show cause order, the court dismisses the petition as untimely.

U nder 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), a petition to review a final decision by the Board must be filed “within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final

. . . decision.” This Case: 23-1660 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 07/10/2023CASAS v. DHS 2

statutory filing deadline is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable exceptions

. Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd ., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, alt hough Mr. Casas contends that his failure to timely file is excusable due to a purported miscalculation of the filing deadline, this court may only consider whether his petition was timely and cannot toll based on his personal circumstances. Because the petition was filed outside the 60

- day deadline, this court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The petit ion for review is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Ju ly 10 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court Case: 23-1660 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 07/10/2023
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 10, 2018

No. 04-18-00364-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.T., AND A.C.T., CHILDREN,

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 33615

Honorable Robert Cadena, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due on September 28, 2018. Neither the brief nor a motion for 

extension of time has been filed.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to file, on or before October 22, 2018, his appellant’s 

brief and a written response reasonably explaining (1) his failure to timely file the brief and (2) 

why appellee is not significantly injured by his failure to timely file a brief. If appellant fails to 

file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary 

dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court order).

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court