alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ousaine BALDEH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-4615-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2011.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Ousaine Baldeh, a native and citizen of the Gambia, seeks review of an October 15, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the November 25, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel C. Vide-la denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In re Ousaine Baldeh,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2010), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 25, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. *See Yan Chen v. Gonzales,*417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005).

Baldeh argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by the inconsistencies in his testimony. However, as the BIA found, Baldeh’s appeal to the BIA did not present any specific challenges to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Accordingly, we decline to consider Baldeh’s challenges to the adverse credibility finding because he failed to exhaust the arguments by presenting them to the BIA in the first instance. *See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,*480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir.2007) (reaffirming that this Court “may consider only those issues that formed the basis for [the BIA’s] decision”). *499Because Baldeh’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief shared the same common factual basis, the agency’s finding that his testimony was not credible supports the agency’s denial of all three forms of relief. *See Paul v. Gonzales,*444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------

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


     The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

     In connection with the Annual Report of Realmark Property Investors Limited
Partnership - VI A (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, 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; and

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




     March 31, 2009                            /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
     --------------                            --------------------
          Date                                 Joseph M. Jayson
                                               Individual General Partner and
                                               Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
                          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 annual report of YoCream International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John N.
Hanna, Director, Chairman, 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)
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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ John N. Hanna
John N. Hanna
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
YoCream International, Inc.

January 31, 2005

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to YoCream International, Inc. and
will be retained by YoCream International, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 25, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-5109 (D.C. Nos. 4:13-CV-00145-SPF-TLW and 4:09-CR-00043-SPF-1) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before HARTZ , McKAY , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges. Appellant seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. In 2010, Appellant was convicted on several tax evasion charges and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Springer , 444 F. App’x 256 (10th Cir. 2011). Appellant then filed the instant § 2255 petition, in which he raised seventy-six grounds for relief. The district court dismissed the majority of these grounds as procedurally barred, then concluded that

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.each of the remaining grounds failed on the merits. We have thoroughly reviewed the appellate record and Appellant’s filings on appeal, as well as the applicable legal standards. Having done so, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s comprehensive orders disposing of this case. We accordingly DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. We DENY Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperison appeal. All other pending motions are likewise DENIED
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6647

LAWRENCE M. BREAKLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

C. DANIEL LARSEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-98-366-AM)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: Octcober 15, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence M. Breakley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Breakley v. Larsen, No. CA-98-366-AM (E.D.

Va. Apr. 3, 1998). 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
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
 Fort Pierce, Florida
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Victor M Agahan

(Vic)
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Facility Management Specialist
                        Phone: (772) 462-5864
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


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
# C_2005134EN.01001201.xml

| 1.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/12

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission decision 2001/462/3C, ECSC of 23 may 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 134/06)

On 13 November 2001 the Commission received notification, under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’), of a transaction whereby a part of the assets of the French company Moulinex was to be acquired by another French company, SEB. On 8 January 2002 the Commission decided not to oppose to the transaction notified and to declare it compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments which formed an integral part of the decision. This decision, adopted under Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of the Merger Regulation, authorised the transaction with respect to its effects outside France. The French authorities had requested that part of the case be referred to them, and by a decision likewise adopted on 8 January 2002, under Article 9 of the Merger Regulation, the Commission referred the French aspects of the case to the French authorities.

On 3 April 2003 the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission's authorising decision with respect to five countries where no remedies had been required (Spain, Finland, Italy, the United Kingdom and Ireland). The Commission then reopened the first phase of investigation.

In accordance with Article 10(5) of the Merger Regulation, the date on which the notification and the time limits which depend on it now took effect was 3 April 2003.

On 23 May 2003 the Commission concluded that the commitments offered by SEB did not overcome the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the common market, and decided to initiate formal proceedings under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

Those proceedings were suspended on 19 June 2003 by a decision under Article 11 of the Merger Regulation. SEB supplied a full reply, and the proceedings resumed on 1 August 2003. The time limit for a decision under Article 8 of the Merger Regulation is consequently 25 November 2003. The conclusion from the detailed market surveys now carried out is that no commitments other than those entered into in the earlier proceedings were needed in order to prevent the creation or strengthening of a dominant position. For this reason no statement of objections has been sent to the parties.

I consider that the undertakings' right to be heard has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 4 November 2003

Serge DURANDE

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.45

[INNERDYNE, INC. LOGO]

Daniel J. Genter
Senior Vice President
InnerDyne, Inc.

                                                                 August 15, 1999

Dear Dan,

      Thank you for bringing to my attention the oversight that occurred when
your original employment offer with InnerDyne, Inc. was extended to you in
March, 1996. As you know, our policy has been to provide for a severance
payment for senior management personnel who are required to uproot their family
and relocate when they join the Company. This provision was inadvertently
dropped from your formal offer letter.

      Therefore, this letter will serve as a modification of your terms of
employment. If your employment is terminated other than for cause by InnerDyne,
Inc., the Company will pay to you the equivalent of six months of your base
salary, payable monthly in accordance with established payroll procedures. If
this modification is acceptable to you, please sign below and return a copy of
this letter to my attention.

                                          Sincerely,

                                          /s/ WILLIAM G. MAVITY
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          William G. Mavity
                                          President/CEO


Accepted by:  /s/ DANIEL E. GENTER
            -------------------------
              Daniel E. Genter

Date:  8/15/1999
     --------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001034258
<NAME> NOBLE INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              42
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17670
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       6004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 26069
<PP&E>                                           58970
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  111395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            17825
<BONDS>                                          19834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         26565
<OTHER-SE>                                         513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    111395
<SALES>                                          48335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 48335
<CGS>                                            33131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    33131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  7776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6477
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2457
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4020
<DISCONTINUED>                                   11085
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (394)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14711
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.82


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statements of financial condition and the consolidated statements
of operation of Unified Financial Services, Inc. filed as part of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such report.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      12,662,456
<SECURITIES>                                   626,148
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,929,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (37,645)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,544,201
<PP&E>                                       6,287,825
<DEPRECIATION>                              (3,391,848)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,906,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,163,153
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        32,708
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        529
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,906,229
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,546,583
<CGS>                                        5,453,897
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,453,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,108,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,050
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             387,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (417,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    66,387
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (484,050)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (484,050)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.16)


</TABLE>
(25 Civ. Proc. R. 365.)

#### CREMINS v. EAST LAKE WOOLEN CO.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

April, 1896.)

Attachment—Amendment of Affidavit.

The omission of the affidavit to allege that plaintiff, in attachment against a foreign corporation, was a resident of the state (Code Civ. Proc. § 1780), is a jurisdictional defect, and cannot be cured by amendment.

Action by James Cremins against the East Lake Woolen Company. Plaintiff moves for leave to file an affidavit nunc pro tunc in support of an attachment, which had been set aside. Denied.

J. Edward Ackley, for the motion.

Blumenstiel & Hirsch, opposed.

LAWRENCE, J.

This is a motion made on behalf of the plaintiff for leave to file an affidavit nunc pro tunc showing that the plaintiff was a resident of this state at the time the attachment issued herein was granted. It appears that the attachment was *203granted against a foreign corporation, and that the affidavits upon which it was granted did not show that the plaintiff was either a resident of the state, or that the cause of action accrued within the state. Under such circumstances it would appear that the court had no jurisdiction (Code Civ. Proc. § 1780; Ladenburg v. Bank, 87 Hun, 274, 33 N. Y. Supp. 821; Adler v. Order of American Fraternal Circle [Sup.] 19 N. Y. Supp. 885.) It appears that a motion was made before Mr. Justice Truax on behalf of Aaron M. Klaw, a subsequent lienor, to vacate the attachment, on the ground that the court had acquired no jurisdiction, and that such motion was granted. The application before me is for leave to file an additional affidavit nunc pro tunc setting forth the residence of the plaintiff in this state. The authorities up to this time have been uniform to the effect that such a motion could not be granted (see cases supra); and I do not find that the oases which are relied upon by the plaintiff in support of this motion are in point. The case of Sulzbacher v. J. Cawthra & Co. (Com. Pl.) 36 N. Y. Supp. 8, recently affirmed in the court of appeals (43 N. E. 990), is not in point, for the reason that there all the jurisdictional facts necessary for the granting of the attachment appeared fully in the attachment papers, and the application was made not to vacate the attachment, but to reduce it to a certain amount, because it was plain that the affidavits were not complete enough to warrant the court in granting the attachment for the amount for which it was granted. Here there is no attachment to amend, because it has already been vacated by the order of Mr. Justice Truax, and to grant it would be, in effect, to sustain an appeal from one special term judge to another.

Ordered accordingly; $100 costs of motion. Settle order on notice.