alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COULTER et al., Appellants, v. JABEES QUIRK MILLING CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 4, 1912.)

Action by David Coulter and another against the James Quirk Bulling Company. W. C. Low, for appellants. G. Hahn, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
[No. 39701-0-I.

Division One.

October 6, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Danny Ray Dokes, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-03846-2, Marilyn R. Sellers, J., entered November 12, 1996. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 15.1



Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting



The management of NTT DoCoMo, Inc. (the company) is responsible
for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Internal control over financial reporting of the company is a process designed to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.



Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial
reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. In addition, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions and that the degree of
compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate.



Management evaluated the effectiveness of the companys internal control over financial reporting using the criteria set forth in Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on this evaluation, management concluded that the companys internal control over financial reporting was effective as of March 31, 2007.



Managements assessment of the companys internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2007 has
been audited by KPMG AZSA & Co., an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report.



Dated: June 19, 2007



/s/    MASAO NAKAMURAMasao NakamuraPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/    MASAYUKI HIRATAMasayuki Hirata Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES MARTIN HARRIS, a/k/a Bloody 45,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00048-AWA-TEM-3; 2:16-cv00413-AWA)

Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Martin Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Martin Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

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 Harris has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### DUNN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 13, 1912.)

Action by Elizabeth F. Dunn, as administratrix, etc., against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1119.

KRUSE, J., dissents, upon the ground that in view of the defendant’s rules and orders and the signals given, and the unfamiliarity of the deceased with the road and conditions at the place of the accident, the question of contributory negligence, as well as that of the defendant’s negligence, was for the jury.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2324 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2324

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend coverage of 
 orthopedic shoes under part B of the Medicare Program to individuals 
              without diabetes who medically require them.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend coverage of 
 orthopedic shoes under part B of the Medicare Program to individuals 
              without diabetes who medically require them.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENDING MEDICARE COVERAGE OF ORTHOPEDIC SHOES TO NON-
              DIABETIC INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(12) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(s)(12)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter before subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) by striking ``subject to section 4072(e) of the 
                Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987,''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``or for an individual with 
                another condition that a physician certifies as 
                requiring such shoes'' after ``for an individual with 
                diabetes''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``diabetic condition'' 
        and inserting ``diabetic or other condition'' each place it 
        appears.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1834(j)(5)(F)(iii) of such Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395m(j)(5)(F)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(iii) therapeutic shoes as described in 
                        section 1861(s)(12),''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to shoes furnished on or after January 1, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          29,928
<SECURITIES>                                   864,434
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (13,653)
<INVENTORY>                                    215,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               492,405
<PP&E>                                         175,427
<DEPRECIATION>                                (103,145)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,271,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          506,818
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    192,642
<COMMON>                                           860
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,571,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,271,959
<SALES>                                        133,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,408
<CGS>                                           84,025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (1,569,963)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,688,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,688,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,688,827)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.20)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-133439, 333-138744 and 333-142358 on
Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-91120 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 6, 2007 (November 2, 2007 as to the
effects of the restatement discussed in Note 23), relating to the financial statements of MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement discussed in Note 23), and of our report on internal control over financial reporting dated March 6, 2007
(November 2, 2007 as to the effects of the material weakness discussed in Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting as revised) (which report expresses an adverse opinion
on the effectiveness of the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of MarkWest Energy
Partners, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Denver,
Colorado
November 2, 2007

---



QuickLinks
[No. 19818-5-II.

Division Two.

August 8, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Terrance Lorenze Powe, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-1-00292-9, Brian M. Tollefson, J., entered August 17, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
Exhibit 32.2

                              COMMUNITY BANKS, INC.
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
                            (Chief Financial Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Community Banks, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2004 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Donald
F. Holt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2003,
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.

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


/s/  Donald F. Holt
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
November 9, 2004
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Food Components and Health Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    FCHL Home
                    About FCHL
                        News
                                    Documents
                                    Directions to FCHLSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




According to USDA's MyPlate, make half of your plate a variety of fruits and vegetables, choose lots of different colors.
 MyPlate recommends eating foods that contain less saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.
 The Food Components and Health Laboratory (FCHL) conducts research into the effects of components of food on changes in various measures of human health.
 Our talented staff collects, processes, and analyzes many different samples generated by our Human Nutrition Feeding Studies.


Mission


Nutrition Research Studies Sign-up to be a Participant in the Taste Test Study!! Join our Database of Potential Study Participants Volunteer Screening Process Current Studies Completed Studies Body Mass Index (BMI) Chart Directions to Facility News


Northeast Area   David.Baer@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
[No. 38931-9-I.

Division One.

September 2, 1997.]

#### Larry J. Dressel, et al., *Appellants,*v. The City of Everett, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 94-2-07951-2, James H. Allendoerfer, J., entered June 12,1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Ellington, J.
# L_2008086EN.01000701.xml

| 28.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 86/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 86/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 280/2008

of 27 March 2008

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 27 March 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 27 March 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 27 March 2008, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 33,106 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 March 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1260/2007 (OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 1). Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 will be replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) as from 1 October 2008.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2008 by Commission Regulation (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 9).

2

---
#### Kevin Dewayne GRAHAM, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Warden Buckingham Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-7808.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2006.

Decided: May 4, 2006.

Kevin DeWayne Graham, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Kevin DeWayne Graham, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying without prejudice relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution*304al right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60196 Summary Calendar

**Madelin Johely Galo**

**- Betancourt,** 

Petitioner **,**

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

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206 165 548

Before **Southwick, Oldham,**  and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Madelin Johe l y Galo

- Betancourt, a native and citizen of Honduras, has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s ( “ BIA ” ) decision dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge ( “ IJ ” ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

* 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 June 24, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60196 Document: 00516369738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2022No. 21

- 60196

2 under the Convention Against Torture ( “ CAT ” ). We generally review only the BIA’s decision , except to the extent that the IJ’s ruling influence d the
BIA ’s decision

. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).

Galo

- Betancourt, who was never threatened or harmed by the Mara

- 18 gang, has failed to demonstrate that substantial evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA on the issue of whether she suffere d past persecution. See Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) ; Morales v. Sessions , 860 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017)

. Also, she has abandoned any challenge the BIA’s determination that “persons perceived by the gangs or other organized cr iminal groups as contravening its rules o r resisting its authority” was not a cognizable particular social group ( “ PSG ” ) by failing to brief the claim on appeal. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) . In any event, an antagonistic r elationship with gangs is not by itself a basis for establishing a PSG. See Hernandez

- De La Cruz v. Lynch , 819 F.3d 784, 78 6

– 8 7 (5th Cir. 2016)

. In addition, the record does not support her contention that she is entitled to protection on account of imputed anti

- gang political opinion or family membership. See Vazquez

Guerra v. Garland , 7 F.4th 265, 269

- 70 (5th Cir. 2021) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 1228 (2022)

. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s denial of her claim for asylum. See Zhang , 432 F.3d at 344.

Because Galo

- Betancourt has not demonstrated that she is entitled to asylum, she cannot satisfy the more deman ding standard for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Her unexhausted CAT claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. See Martinez

Guevara v. Garland , 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022)

. Th e petition is **DENIED IN PART** and **DISMISSED IN PART** for lack of jurisdiction. Case: 21-60196 Document: 00516369738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2022