alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20828-20829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9671]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ-020-00-5101-ER-A172; AZA-31094]


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) on 500kv Line in Maricopa County, Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION:  Notice of intent to prepare an EIS on a 500kv line and notice 
of scoping meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) is proposing to prepare an EIS for Arizona Public Service 
Company's (APS) Southwest Valley 500kv Transmission Line Project in the 
southwest metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona.

DATES: The public, state, and local governments, and other federal 
agencies are asked to participate in the EIS process. Written comments 
on the initial scoping process will be accepted until May 19, 2000. 
Public scoping meetings will be held from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 2, 
2000, at the Millennium High School, 14802 W. Wigwam Boulevard, 
Goodyear, Arizona, and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 4, 2000, at the 
Buckeye Union High School Gym, 902 E. Eason Avenue, Buckeye, Arizona. 
Additional meetings will be considered as appropriate.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: APS plans to construct and operate a 500kv 
transmission line from the existing Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station (approximately 45 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona) to a proposed 
500/230kv substation located 30 to 50 miles to the east. The project 
would provide needed energy to the Phoenix metropolitan area and the 
southwest valley. The proposed project will take approximately one year 
to construct, with an in-service date of January 2003. The BLM's 
scooping process for the EIS will include: (1) Identification of 
significant issues; (2) identification of

[[Page 20829]]

sensitive or critical environmental impacts; (3) identification of 
reasonable alternative transmission line routes and substation sites; 
and (4) notifying interested groups, individuals, and agencies so that 
additional information concerning these issues and concerns can be 
obtained.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Michael A. Taylor, Phoenix Field 
Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix Field Office, 2015 W. Deer 
Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Pedrick, Project Manager, 
Phoenix Field Office, 2015 W. Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027, 
(623) 580-5500.

    Dated: April 5, 2000.
Margo E. Fitts,
Assistant Field Manager, Support Services.
[FR Doc. 00-9671 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8575

JOEY N. HINTON-BEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.
GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairman Virginia Parole Board,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-00529-RGD-FBS)

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joey N. Hinton-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Joey N. Hinton-Bey appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Hinton-Bey v. Johnson , No. 2:08-cv-00529-RGD-FBS (E.D.
Va. Nov. 17, 2008). Hinton-Bey’s motion for production of
documents is denied. 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.

AFFIRMED
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, ATTANASIO, and HOUTZ

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Jorge A. GRADIZ, Jr.

Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202000183 (f rev)

_________________________

Decided: 10 May 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

upon further review

Military Judges: 

Jeffrey V. Munoz (trial)

Stephen F. Keane (Entry of Judgment)

Sentence adjudged 29 May 2020 by a general court-martial convened at 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to 

E-1, confinement for 18 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.1

 

1 The convening authority suspended the reduction to E-1 for a period of six 

months. 
United States v. Gradiz, NMCCA No. 202000183

Opinion of the Court

2

For Appellant: 

Commander Michael E. Maffei, JAGC, USN

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

This case is before us for review a second time. During our initial review, 

we set aside the Convening Authority Action [CA Action] and Entry of Judgment [EOJ] and remanded for new post-trial processing.2 Following completion 

of the new CA Action and EOJ, the case has returned to the Court for completion of appellate review.

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.3

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

2 United States v. Gradiz, No. 202000183, 2021 CCA LEXIS 167 (N-M. Ct. Crim. 

App. Apr. 7, 2021) (unpublished).

3 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-28-1998
<CASH>                                           7,443
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (335)
<INVENTORY>                                     26,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,709
<PP&E>                                          54,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                (33,729)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,118
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,228
<SALES>                                         29,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,648
<CGS>                                           12,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,578)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,588)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# USCIS Updates Review Process for the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans

05/18/2023

The U.S. government is granting advance travel authorization for up to 30,000 noncitizens each month to come to the United States to seek parole on a case-by-case basis under the processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. Due to high interest in these processes, USCIS is updating the review process effective May 17, 2023.

We are updating the review process because the number of supporters who have submitted Form I-134A, Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support, is significantly higher than the 30,000 monthly travel authorizations available. It is intended to maintain a meaningful and equitable opportunity for all beneficiaries of a Form I-134A to move forward through the process and seek advance travel authorization.

Under the new review process that went into effect on May 17, USCIS will randomly select about half of the monthly total, regardless of filing date, from the entire pending workload of Form I-134A to determine whether the case can be confirmed. We will review the other half of the monthly total of Forms I-134A based on when the case was submitted under the first-in, first-out method, which prioritizes the oldest Forms I-134A for review.

Potential supporters should not submit a duplicate Form I-134A for the same beneficiary. We will not accept a duplicate Form I-134A if a previously submitted Form I-134A between the same potential supporter and beneficiary is pending. If we do not confirm a Form I-134A, but a supporter believes they meet the requirements to be a supporter under the process, they may file a new Form I-134A and submit additional information as evidence.

Under this updated review process, processing times will vary. Potential supporters may monitor the status of a Form I-134A they filed in their USCIS online account or check the most recent status in Case Status Online. The USCIS Contact Center cannot provide any additional information about the status of your case.

05/18/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
# Your New Child's Immigrant Visa

## Immigrant Visas Adopted Children May Receive

04/01/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### Calvary Cemetery Ass’n of Watertown, Appellant, v. Glenn *et al.,*Respondents.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. .
1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
2 The substance of former subsection (e) is now found in subsection (g), with stylistic changes. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 advisory committee notes (2002 amend.). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2700

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Freddie Ross, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 26, 2004 Filed: May 3, 2004

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Freddie Ross appeals the district court’s 1 partial denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) 2motion for return of seized property, which included $8,400 in cash and several noncash items. We have carefully reviewed the-2- record, and we find no clear error. See United States v. Felici , 208 F.3d 667, 669-70 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1201 (2001). Police found the $8,400 inside Ross’s girlfriend’s bedroom closet, Ross initially denied any knowledge of the cash, and he later told police the cash belonged to a Vikings football player. In addition, Ross’s attorney conceded during the Rule 41 hearing that the motion was moot with respect to the seized noncash items. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Douglas Valenti, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of QuinStreet, Inc.; and

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: February 19, 2013



/s/ Douglas ValentiDouglas ValentiChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      119
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,684
<PP&E>                                              25
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,711
<SALES>                                            645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   710
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (479)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (479)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (479)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Forrest P. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

The foregoing certification shall not be deemed to be filed for thepurposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 orotherwise subject to liability under this section.  This certification shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 orthe Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.2 is expresslyincorporated by reference in any such filing.

 
| Dated: August 22, 2005 | /s/ Forrest P. Jordan   |   |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                        | Forrest P. Jordan       |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Fredis GONZALEZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1696.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2011.

Decided: May 20, 2011.

*337Anser Ahmad, Ahmad Law Offices, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant Director, John J.W. Inkeles, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fredis Gonzalez-Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal.

Gonzalez-Reyes first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Gonzalez-Reyes fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gonzalez-Reyes cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *Chen v. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); *INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Gonzalez-Reyes failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2010).

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.*
# Naturalization Eligibility Tool

## Before you begin the application for naturalization (N-400), answer a few questions to see if you are eligible to apply to become a U.S. citizen through naturalization. 

These questions are solely intended to help you determine whether you may be eligible to submit the Application for Naturalization (N-400). This tool does not determine if you are actually eligible for citizenship. After you submit your application, USCIS will review your information and determine if you are eligible for citizenship through naturalization.

Determine my eligibility

Go directly to the Application for Naturalization (N-400)

Apply for Citizenship Online: How to File Your Application for Naturalization Online Video: Learn how to use your online account to check your eligibility for naturalization, complete the online form, upload evidence, and pay your fee. You’ll also learn how to track and manage your case after filing. 

03/11/2022

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Annual Report of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jannett Wang,
Vice President of Administration 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/ Jannett Wang
Jannett Wang
Vice President of Administration
(chief financial officer)
June 27, 2003

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.01

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         I, Bruce Cleland, the Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company,
Inc. as managing operator of The Campbell Fund Trust, certify that (i) the Form
10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of The Campbell Fund Trust fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of The Campbell Fund Trust.

                                 THE CAMPBELL FUND TRUST


                                 By: Campbell & Company, Inc., managing operator


                                 By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland
                                     -----------------------------
                                     Bruce L. Cleland
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     August 14, 2003



                                      E 4
Order filed, September 25, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00431-CV

____________

JASMINE RICKS, Appellant

V.

QUALITY CARRIERS, INC. & CRAIG L. SMITH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-17716

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 29, 2014. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Sheri Ullrich, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM