alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Saturnin Alban Cyrille YADAMA-GBEBRY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 05-2068.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 28, 2006.

Decided: April 26, 2006.

Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Ralph Andrew Price, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Saturnin Alban Cyrille Yadama Gbebry, a native and citizen of the Central African Republic (“CAR”), petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming and adopting the immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. Gbebry also challenges the Board’s decision denying the motion to remand to consider an application for adjustment of status. We deny the petition for review.

An applicant has the burden of demonstrating his eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005); *Gonahasa v. INS,*181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir.1999). Credibility findings, relevant to the subjective component, are reviewed for substantial evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds must offer specific, cogent reasons for doing so. *Figeroa v. INS,*886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.1989). This court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004).

A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. *215
      *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). This court will reverse the Board “only if ‘the evidence presented by the petitioner was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’ ” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting *Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA,*979 F.2d 995 at 999 (4th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We find with respect to Gbebry’s applications for relief, the evidence does not compel a different result. We further find the Board properly denied the motion to remand.

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.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1649 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1649

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require staff working 
with developmentally disabled individuals to call emergency services in 
               the event of a life-threatening situation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2005

Mr. Holt (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Payne, Mr. Saxton, 
Mr. Owens, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Towns, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. 
   Pallone) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require staff working 
with developmentally disabled individuals to call emergency services in 
               the event of a life-threatening situation.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT OF STAFF WORKING WITH DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED 
              PERSONS TO CALL EMERGENCY SERVICES IN THE EVENT OF A 
              LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION.

    (a) Requirement.--Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (66), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (67), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (67) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(68) provide, in accordance with regulations of the 
        Secretary, that direct care staff providing health-related 
        services to a person with a developmental disability or 
        traumatic brain injury are required to call the 911 emergency 
        telephone service or equivalent emergency management service 
        for assistance in the event of a life-threatening emergency to 
        such person and to report such call to the appropriate State 
        agency or department.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take 
effect on January 1, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
#### RIDER, Appellant, v. BRITTON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 19, 1907.)

Action by Clinton W. Rider against Margaret Britton.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $ 10-costs and disbursements. Held that, it appearing by statements in appellant’s brief that the cause was upon the calendar at the term at which the order was granted, the court in the exercise of its discretion had the right to make the order appealed from, independent of the provisions of rule 31 of the general rules of practice.

SPRING, J.,

dissents, upon the authority of Ellensohn v. Keyes, 6 App. Div. 601, 39 N. Y. Supp. 774.
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





I, Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.



PHOTOMEDEX, INC.





Dated: November 24, 2004

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. O'Donnell



Jeffrey F. O'Donnell

Chief Executive Officer











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Paul James KOUMJIAN, petitioner, v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-8616.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Michael SWAIN, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-10196.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the three months ended March 31,1999 for May Drilling Partnership 1983-3 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000711310
<NAME>                        May Drilling Partnership 1983-3
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         162
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         1,525
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,822
<SALES>                                        152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  20
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                80
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            80
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   80
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Russell A. Evans, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:



| | (1) |  | the Report 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 Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                                                            
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                 | 
|October 25, 2006 |  | /s/ RUSSELL A. EVANS                                       
|                 |  | Russell A. Evans Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
Nigel Ali MAITLAND, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 13-6162.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, denied.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.25


                  CHEMED CORPORATION EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN NO. 1
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1


         The Chemed Corporation Excess Benefit Plan No. 1 (the "Plan") is hereby
amended effective July 1, 2002 as follows:

         1.       Section 2(k) shall be rewritten in its entirety to read as
                  follows:

                  (k) "Employee Stock Ownership Plans I and II" - The Chemed
                  Employee Stock Ownership Plan I, adopted effective November 1,
                  1987, as amended, and the Chemed Employee Stock Ownership Plan
                  II, adopted effective August 1, 1998, as amended, and as
                  merged into the Savings & Retirement Plan effective July 1,
                  2002.

         2.       In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in full force and
                  effect.

                                   CERTIFICATE

         The undersigned, Secretary of Chemed Corporation, hereby certifies that
the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Amendment No. 1 to its Excess
Benefit Plan No. 1.

         Signed in Cincinnati, Ohio as of this 1st day of July, 2002.

                                              /s/ Naomi C. Dallob
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Naomi C. Dallob, Secretary
Exhibit 23.1

SEALE AND BEERS, CPAs
PCAOB & CPAB REGISTERED AUDITORS
--------------------------------
www.sealebeers.com


        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
        --------------------------------------------------------


We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of No Show Inc, of our
report dated October 22, 2009 on our audit of the financial statements of
No Show Inc as of July 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended July 31,
2009 and 2008 and since inception on August 23, 2005 through July 31, 2009,
and the reference to us under the caption "Experts."


/s/ Seale and Beers, CPAs
-------------------------
    Seale and Beers, CPAs
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    October 27, 2009


           Seale and Beers, CPAs PCAOB & CPAB Registered Auditors
              50 S. Jones Blvd Suite 202 Las Vegas, NV 89107
                 Phone: (888)727-8251 Fax: (888)782-2351

<PAGE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40682

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLYS COOPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:96-CR-34-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 12, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Carlys Cooper has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our 

independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin S. McRae, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting 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:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Robin S. McRae

By  ____________________________________

Robin S.  McRae

Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer

Date:  May 13, 2005
Abe GIVINS, Jr., petitioner, v. James J. BRISCO, et al.

No. 13-6462.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
* Defendant‐appellee was not served with process in the district court.  Accordingly,

it is not a party to this appeal.  After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we

have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.  Thus the appeal is submitted on the

appellant’s brief and the record.  FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 13, 2008*

Decided November 13, 2008

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

    ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

    DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐1974

ZACHARY A. McGRAW, JR.,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF

AVIATION,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 07 C 6481

Robert W. Gettleman,

Judge.

O R D E R

In November 2007 Zachary McGraw sued the City of Chicago Department of

Aviation, claiming that it discriminated against him on political grounds by not promoting

him, and retaliated against him for previously filing a race‐based employment

discrimination suit.  Judge Zagel dismissed the suit as frivolous because McGraw failed to

file it within 90 days of receiving his right‐to‐sue letter from the Equal Employment

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐1974 Page 2

Opportunity Commission.  McGraw then filed a self‐styled “Motion Not to Dismiss,”

vaguely invoking political discrimination under the terms of the consent decree in Shakman

v. Democratic Org. of Cook County. Judge Gettleman, to whom the case had been reassigned,

denied the motion as untimely and duplicative of claims that McGraw had raised in a

related suit.  McGraw’s subsequent motion to reopen the case under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)

was also denied, and he appeals.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) requires the appellant’s brief to set

forth “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and

parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”  FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see

Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008).  An argument must consist of more than

a generalized assertion of error with citations to supporting authority.  See Anderson v.

Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).  McGraw’s appellate brief contains only

generalized assertions of misconduct on the part of the City of Chicago, and he does not

challenge, or even mention, the district court’s dismissal of the case.  Although we construe

pro se filings liberally, “we must still be able to discern cogent arguments in any appellate

brief, even from a pro se litigant.”  See id. Here we have nothing to review because McGraw

has not pointed to any legal or factual error in the district court’s decision.  Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Maxtor Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael R. Cannon, President and 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:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

                                           /s/ Michael R. Cannon
                                           -------------------------------------
November 12, 2002                          Michael R. Cannon
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTINE SILVER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2838 ) ANTHONY SILVER, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 9, 2018. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier County; Elizabeth V. Krier, Judge. Michael E. Chionopoulos of Absolute Law, P.A., Fort Myers, for Petitioner. Lisa P. Kirby of The Law Offices of Lisa P. Kirby, P.A., Naples, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12656]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Investment Advisory Council; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration Investment Advisory Councils 
will hold a public meeting on Thursday, June 8, 1995, from 10:00 a.m. 
to 3:00 p.m. at the ANA Hotel, located at 2401 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC, to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, 
staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present.
    For further information, write or call Ed Cleveland, Office of 
Investments, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 
Washington, DC, (202) 205-6510.
Dorothy A. Overal,
Director, Office of Advisory Councils.
[FR Doc. 95-12656 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 11 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ In re: Dan Lee , Sr., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lDeb to r .

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Dan Lee, Sr., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

App el la nt ,
v. D. Mat th ew Edwar ds , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

App el le e .

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s B an kr

up tc y App el la te Pan el forth e Eig ht h C irc ui t

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Sep te m

be r 29 , 20 17 Fil ed : Oct ob er 4 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Dan Lee ap pe al s aft er th e Ban krup tc y App el la te Pan el affi rm ed th e ba nk rupt cy

co ur t’s de ni al of a po st -jud gm en t m ot io n in hi s Ch ap te r 7 ba nk rupt cy cas e. Hav in g

1 care fu ll y rev ie wed th e reco rd an d Le e ’s arg um en ts on ap pe al , we fin d no ba si s fo r rev ers al

. Se e In re Vo te , 27 6 F .3d 10 24 , 1 02 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (s ta nd ardof r ev ie w). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . Se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B. Lee’s m ot io n fo r a pr ot ect iv e or de r is de ni ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Ho n o r a b l e Barr y S. Sch erm er, Uni te d St at es Ban krup tc y Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ctof M is so ur i. -2

-