alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert D. THROWER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-3160.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 26, 2004.

Dean P. Wyman, Thomas E. Getz, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Albert D. Thrower, Morgantown, WV, pro se.

Before: RYAN, DAUGHTREY, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

The defendant appeals the order denying his motion for release on bail pending sentencing and appeal. The government supports the affirmance of the district court’s order. After this appeal was docketed, the defendant was sentenced and the final judgment of conviction was entered. Therefore, the defendant’s challenge to the denial of release on bail pending sentencing is moot.

This court reviews the denial of bail pending appeal for an abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Chilingirian,*280 F.3d 704, 709 (6th Cir.2002). To establish entitlement to release pending appeal, the defendant must show 1) by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of another person or the community, and 2) that the appeal is not for delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, an order for new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a sentence reduced to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1); *United States v. Chilingirian,*280 F.3d at 709; *United States v. Pollard,*778 F.2d 1177, 1181 (6th Cir. 1985). This statute creates a presumption against release pending appeal. *United States v. Vance,*851 F.2d 166, 168-69 (6th Cir.), *cert, denied,*488 U.S. 893, 109 S.Ct. 231,102 L.Ed.2d 220 (1988).

The district court denied the defendant’s motion for release on November 19, 2003. The November 19 order finds that the defendant posed a danger to the community and was a risk of flight. In addition, the court concluded that the defendant had a minimal likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal. The defendant has not *344demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the district court.

Therefore, the November 19 order denying release on bail pending appeal is AFFIRMED.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 818 

Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct 

a blood donation drive. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2022 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the 

Senate to conduct a blood donation drive. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SENATE BLOOD DONATION DRIVE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Sergeant at Arms and Door4 keeper of the Senate, in conjunction with the American 

5 Red Cross, is authorized to conduct a blood donation drive 

6 on October 14, 2022, in room G–50 of the Everett McKin7 ley Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

8 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Physical preparations for 

9 the conduct of, and the implementation of, the blood dona10 tion drive authorized under subsection (a) shall be carried 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 818 ATS 

1 out in accordance with such conditions as the Sergeant 

2 at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, in consultation 

3 with the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 

4 Senate, may prescribe. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Мне следовало оставаться дома

Я пришел на работу и занялся делами. Я 

Я проснулся, чувствуя себя ужасно. У меня Все, чего мне хотелось, - это лечь в постель, уверен, что выглядел так же плохо, как и 

был понос и я был болен. но у меня скопились неоплаченные счета, и чувствовал себя. Я понимаю, что мне не 

я не мог позволить себе не идти на работу. следовало приходить.

Когда им принесли их заказ, он 

Количество заказов увеличивалось, так Карлос прекрасно проводил время со своей сразу набросился на еду, тут же 

что я сразу приступил к приготовлению семьей. Это был его любимый ресторан. прикончил свой бургер, и его сестра 

бургеров. поделилась с ним частью своего.

В тот же вечер Карлоса скрутило от болей в Я узнал также, что еще 33 человека Мне бы следовало сделать то, что я считал 

животе. Он сильно заболел. В конце концов заболели из за того, что я правильным, - оставаться дома. Я мог предотвратить 

он попал в реанимацию. готовил им пищу, будучи больным. все это. Поскольку ресторан был закрыт довольно 

Департамент здравоохранения длительное время, я потерял источник дохода. Так 

закрыл ресторан. что я попал в затруднительное положение.

Оберегайте людей повсюду. Если вы больны - оставайтесь дома.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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

5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10449 Summary Calendar

Van Lee Brewer, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas (3:93-CV-1422-P)

July 21, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHE and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Van Lee Brewer appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition. Our thorough

review of the record discloses no reversible error, and for the reasons assigned by the2

magistrate judge and adopted by the district court in its Order signed and entered on

March 28, 1996, we AFFIRM.

Brewer’s motions for a writ of mandamus and to supplement the record are

DENIED.
Darrell Wayne HUGHES, petitioner, v. INDIANA.

No. 12-8926.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALFARO-AREVANO, AKA Jose

Miguel Alfaro, AKA Jesus AlfaroArevalo, AKA Jesus Manuel AlfaroArevano,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71917

Agency No. A077-190-788

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2016** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jose Alfaro-Arevano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his request for administrative closure and

FILED

DEC 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for

review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of administrative closure. 

See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court

lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of administrative closure for lack of a

sufficiently meaningful standard to evaluate the decision).

To the extent Alfaro-Arevano challenges the agency’s denial of cancellation

of removal, we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that

Alfaro-Arevano failed to show the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,

930 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2 15-71917
1

Xiamen Boson Biotech Co., Ltd.: Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Card

11-month to 14-month shelf-life extension granted by the FDA on December 21, 2023

Lot Number

Tests with this printed 

expiration date 

(Year-Month-Day) 

Now have this extended

expiration date 

(Year-Month-Day) 

A1515014 2023-05-03 2024-01-03

A1521016 2023-05-06 2024-01-06

A1551018 2023-05-27 2024-01-27

A1555011, A1555020 2023-06-01 2024-02-01

A1563011 2023-06-04 2024-02-04

A1561013 2023-06-05 2024-02-05

A1562016 2023-06-06 2024-02-06

A1602011, A1602020 2023-07-02 2024-03-02

A1612010 2023-07-09 2024-03-09

A1613012, A1613029, 

A1613037 2023-07-10 2024-03-10

A1645017 2023-07-31 2024-03-31

A1651011 2023-08-02 2024-04-02

A1643011, A1651020 2023-08-05 2024-04-05

A1661014 2023-08-12 2024-04-12

A1671010 2023-08-19 2024-04-19

A1673015 2023-08-21 2024-04-21

A1681015 2023-08-26 2024-04-26

A1711012 2023-09-19 2024-05-19

A1713018 2023-09-21 2024-05-21

A1721018 2023-09-26 2024-05-26

A1773019, A1773027 2023-11-02 2024-07-02

A1774013 2023-11-03 2024-07-03

A1805011 2024-04-25 2024-07-25

A1814014, A1814022 2024-04-30 2024-07-31

A1851015 2024-05-25 2024-08-25

A1861019, A1861027, 

A1861035 2024-06-02 2024-09-02

A1883012 2024-06-18 2024-09-18

A1902014, A1902022 2024-06-30 2024-09-30
2

Lot Number

Tests with this printed 

expiration date 

(Year-Month-Day) 

Now have this extended

expiration date 

(Year-Month-Day) 

A1913010, A1913028 2024-07-08 2024-10-08

A1933019, A1933027 2024-07-22 2024-10-22

A1935016 2024-07-24 2024-10-24

A1952011, A1952020 2024-08-04 2024-11-04

A1981018, A1981026, 

A1981034 2024-08-24 2024-11-24

A2022017 2024-09-23 2024-12-23

A2061016 2024-10-19 2025-01-19

A2094016, A2094024 2024-11-13 2025-02-13

A2101014 2024-11-17 2025-02-17
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10494]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[T.D. 95-37]

Recordation of Trade Name: ``CHENGCORP''

SUMMARY: On Tuesday, December 20, 1994, a notice of application for the 
recordation under Section 42 of the Act of July 5, 1946, as amended (15 
U.S.C. 1124), of the trade name ``CHENGCORP'' used by Chengcorp, a 
corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, 
located at 317 S. Palm Avenue, Alhambra, California 91803 was published 
in the Federal Register (59 FR 65572). The notice advised that before 
final action was taken on the application, consideration would be given 
to any relevant data, views, or arguments submitted in writing by any 
person in opposition to the recordation and received not later than 
February 21, 1995. No responses were received in opposition to the 
notice.
    Accordingly, as provided in Section 133.14, Customs Regulations (19 
CFR 133.14), the name ``CHENGCORP,'' is recorded as the trade name used 
by Chengcorp, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 
California, located at 317 S. Palm Avenue, Alhambra, California 91803.
    The application states that the trade name is used in connection 
with the following merchandise descripted below:

Toys & Sporting goods: Electrical apparatus
Paper & Plastic goods: Clothing
Houseware & glass: Bicycles
Environmental control apparatus

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delois P. Johnson, Intellectual 
Property Rights Branch, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Franklin 
Court), Washington, DC 20229 (202-482-6960).

    Dated: April 21, 1995.
John F. Atwood,
Chief, Intellectual Property Rights Branch.
[FR Doc. 95-10494 Filed 4-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-M
```
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60888 Summary Calendar

**Tiburcio Roman Yanez,**

Petitioner **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 069 221

Before **Davis, Jones,** and **Elrod,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Tiburcio Roman

- Yanez , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s dismissal of his cancellation of removal claim.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 3, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60888 Document: 00516304913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2022No. 20

- 60888

2 We have jurisdiction to review this argument. Trejo v. Garland , 3 F.4th 760, 766

- 74 (5th Cir. 2021). We revie w questions of law de novo. Lopez

- Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).

Roman

- Yanez does not show that the BIA erred in applying its precedent or the appropriate legal standard. He argues that his case is comparable to Matter of Recinas , 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 472 (BIA 2002) , where the BIA found cancellation proper, but the fac ts in Recinas are distinguishable from the facts in this case. Accordingly, as the BIA’s determination is based on the facts presented and is consistent with its own caselaw, there is no basis to compel a finding that the BIA erred in finding that the har dship to Roman

Yanez’s family did not warrant cancellation of removal. See Trejo , 3 F.4th at
7 75

- 7 6.

**D ENIED** 

**.** Case: 20-60888 Document: 00516304913 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2022
Kenneth John NARDELLI, et ux., petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN GROUP PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 12-1225.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, denied.
Rodney BERRYMAN, Sr., petitioner, v. Kevin CHAPPELL, Warden.

No. 12-9604.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Mitchell K. Fogelman, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 (this report) of Abraxis BioScience, Inc.
(registrant);
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 26, 2010



/s/    MITCHELL K. FOGELMANMitchell K. FogelmanPrincipal Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99

           WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES III, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                               September 30, 1996



Supplementary information required pursuant to section 9.4 of the partnership
agreement:

1.   Statement of cash available for distribution for the three months ended
     September 30, 1996:

     Net Income                                                   $  3,000
     Add:Amortization expense                                        1,000
             Cash from reserves                                     25,000
     Less:Equity in income of Local Limited Partnerships            (2,000)
                                                                  --------

     Cash Available for Distribution                              $ 27,000
                                                                  ========
     Distributions allocated to General Partners                  $  2,000
                                                                  ========
     Distributions allocated to Limited Partners                  $ 25,000
                                                                  ========


2.   Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
     General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended
     September 30, 1996:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          Entity Receiving                               Form of
            Compensation                               Compensation                         Amount
            ------------                               ------------                         ------
          <S>                           <C>                                               <C>
          General Partners              Interest in Cash Available for Distribution       $  2,000

          WFC Realty Co., Inc.
          (Initial Limited Partner)     Interest in Cash Available for Distribution       $      5
</TABLE>


                                    12 of 12
Theodore N. ARITA, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12-8873.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Antonio Lynn FLUKER, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9581.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NONPARTIES AURORA INNOVATION, INC., CHRISTOPHER URMSON, NURO, INC., AND DAVID 

FERGUSON’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION UNDER SEAL

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SINGER / BEA LLP

 Benjamin L. Singer (Bar. No. 264295)

 bsinger@singerbea.com

 Walter C. Pfeffer (Bar No. 289421)

 wpfeffer@singerbea.com

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1950

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 500-6080

Facsimile: (415) 500-6080

Attorneys for Non-Parties Aurora Innovation, Inc., 

Christopher Urmson, Nuro, Inc., and David Ferguson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

WAYMO, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

NONPARTIES AURORA INNOVATION, 

INC., CHRISTOPHER URMSON, NURO, 

INC., AND DAVID FERGUSON’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION UNDER 

SEAL

Courtroom: F (15th Floor)

Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley

Trial Date: October 2, 2017
- 1 -

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NONPARTIES AURORA INNOVATION, INC., CHRISTOPHER URMSON, NURO, INC., AND DAVID 

FERGUSON’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION UNDER SEAL

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00939

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Having considered nonparties Aurora Innovation, Inc., Christopher Urmson, Nuro, Inc., and 

David Ferguson’s Motion to File Under Seal Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto 

LLC’s Opposition to Discovery Letter Brief (“Motion”) and all evidence and papers submitted 

therewith, and finding that good cause exist, the Court hereby GRANTS that Motion and ORDERS 

that the Opposition to Discovery Letter Brief shall be sealed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________ ________________________________________

HONORABLE JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 13

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 524-3 Filed 05/30/17 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2013

h1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

147360

GAIL SILVERNAIL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147360

COA: 308762

St. Clair CC: 10-001090-NF

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Axcess International, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined Exchange Act
Rules 13-15(f) and 15d-(f)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report was prepared;
 b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); and
 c)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN GRIEBENOWAllan Griebenow, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)