alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 07-19

IN RE: CASES STAYED PENDING MORGAN V. WILKIE, U.S. VET. APP. NO. 17-98

(EXTRASCHEDULAR RATING ANALYSIS)

O R D E R

By order of the Court en banc:

In light of the Court's May 16, 2019, opinion in Morgan v. Wilkie, __ Vet.App. __, No. 17-

98, it is 

ORDERED that the stays imposed in cases pending a decision in Morgan, listed in the 

addendum to this order, are LIFTED as of the date of this order. It is further 

ORDERED that the cases listed in the addendum to this order are now STAYED pending 

a decision in Long v. Wilkie, U.S. Vet. App. No. 16-1537 (sent to en banc panel May 16, 2019);

action on a motion of the parties to a particular case requesting that the stay be lifted in that case;

or sua sponte action by the Court to lift a stay in a particular case.

DATED: May 17, 2019 FOR THE COURT:

/s/Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court

Addendum
Appellant's Last Name Docket #

Decarie 16-2819

Davis, W. 16-2893

Miller, S. 16-3046

Hilton 16-3047

Hawes 16-3076

Prinzo 16-3136

Gibertoni 16-3137

Bodiford 16-3200

Reed 16-3227

Raffelson 16-3248

Berger 16-3418

Keys 16-3444

Clem 16-3445

Colston 16-3837

Woods, T. 17-95

Waggoner 17-254

Bischoff 17-364

Aaland 17-473

Rogers, G. 17-510

McCauley 17-622

Clapp 17-776

Anderson, S. 17-936

Polletta 17-949

Ryan, T. 17-1273

Huff 17-1380

Cooper 17-1559

Benford 17-1709

Corley 17-1840

McKenzie 17-2820

Sapio 17-2999

Anderson 17-3071

Dupre 17-3175

Farwley 17-3227

Pattie 17-3246

Weingarten 17-3861

Wingate 17-3913

Kauinui 17-3988

Skwira 17-4004

Coker 17-4179

Melton 17-4213

Scruggs 17-4214
Stanczak 17

-4241

Beecher 17-4375

Parker 17-4604

Best 17-5004

Hobson 18-112

Chronister 18-209

Hill 18-468

Wright 18-534

Carroll 18-1084

Banschbach 18-1121

Schreiner 18-1252

Montee 18-1620

Howard 18-1695

Couch 18-2199

Lindenmuth 18-2245

Hentz 18-3250

Ziminsky 18-3406

Cozart 18-3650

Granzella 18-3827

Dolobacs 18-3841

Brown, C. 18-3912

Fisher 18-3927

Brazell 18-4390

Martin 18-4484

Simmons 18-4860

Hopkins, W. 18-4927

Dickens 18-4946

Arme 18-4956

Laughlin 18-5245

Hernandez 18-5436

Robin 18-5489

Johnson 18-5824

Rose 18-6061

Bergman 18-6086

Robinson 18-6984
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6214

CLARENCE TONEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
WARDEN PAUL ADAMS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00068

- JPB )

Submitted : November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Clarence Toney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6214 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Clarence Toney , a federal prisoner, appeals the di strict court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Toney ’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the execution of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Toney v. Adams , No. 1:21

- cv - 00068

- JPB (N.D.W. V a . Feb. 10, 2022) . 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.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6214 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**







**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








The
      undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company") does
      hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
      18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company
      for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
                May 3, 2007
            
            /s/
                Jonathan Ilan OfirJonathan
                  Ilan Ofir


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Annual Report of American Oil & Gas, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB/A2 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-KSB/A2"), I,
Patrick D. O'Brien, Chief Executive 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
2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-KSB/A2 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-KSB/A2 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: March 10, 2004
/s/ Patrick D. O'Brien
----------------------
Patrick D. O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer
#### Nelson Manuel MENENDEZ-ACEVEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72210.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 27, 2011.

*677Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Sunah Lee, Trial, OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Nelson Manuel Menendez-Acevedo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Salta v. INS,*314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Menendez-Acevedo’s motion to reopen because notices of hearing were mailed to both of the addresses Menendez-Acevedo gave to the immigration court and Menendez-Acevedo failed to provide persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of proper delivery of the notices. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice shall be considered sufficient for purposes of an in absentia removal order if provided at the most recent address given by alien); *Salta,*314 F.3d at 1079.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 13.1


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 on Form 20-F of Tikcro Technologies Ltd (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Eric Paneth, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, as amended; and
  (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  June 29, 2010


By:
/s/ Eric PanethEric Paneth

Principal Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10130]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 20587]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 2001-ASW-03]


Establishment of Class E Airspace, Sugar Land, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of a direct final 
rule which establishes the Class E Airspace at Sugar Land, TX.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 66 FR 9909 is 
effective 0901 UTC, May 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air 
Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 13, 
2001, (66 FR 9909). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure 
for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be 
no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public 
that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written 
adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an 
adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the 
regulation would become effective on May 17, 2001. No adverse comments 
were received, and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final 
rule will be effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 5, 2001.
Robert N. Stevens,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 01-10130 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
- Home
- Media Center
- Yearly Press Archive

# 2024  Press Releases

### USCP Starts Body Worn Camera Pilot Program

March 18, 2024

### USCP Officers Stop Man with Hammer during Capitol Screening

March 8, 2024

### 2024 State of the Union Road Closures  

March 5, 2024

### USCP Threat Assessment Cases for 2023

January 18, 2024

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS

## Yearly Archive

                  - 2024               (4)          
                  - 2023               (26)          
                  - 2022               (36)          
                  - 2021               (73)          
                  - 2020               (9)          
                  - 2019               (15)          
                  - 2018               (14)          
                  - 2017               (28)          
                  - 2016               (18)          
                  - 2015               (10)          
                  - 2014               (14)          
                  - 2013               (10)          
                  - 2012               (10)          
                  - 2011               (13)          
                  - 2010               (10)          
                  - 2009               (18)          
                  - 2008               (11)          
                  - 2007               (14)          
                  - 2006               (23)          
                  - 2005               (18)          
                  - 2004               (24)          
                  - 2003               (15)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 9, 1998, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), SEMATECH, Inc. (“SEMATECH”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Lucent Technologies,                           ( print page 20688)                        Murray Hill, NJ has been added as a party to this venture. Also, American Telephone & Telegraph Company, New York, NY; Harris Corporation, Melbourne, FL; LSI Logic Corporation Milpitas, CA; Micron Technology, Inc., Boise, ID; and NCR Corporation, Dayton, OH have been dropped as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and SEMATECH intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 22, 1988, SEMATECH filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 19, 1988 (53 FR 17987).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 4, 1989. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on February 10, 1989 (54 FR 6458).                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 01-10024  Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2407
PERCY MOORE BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE COCA-COLA COMPANY; CORPORATE SERVICES MANAGEMENT, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-768) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 12, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Percy Moore Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bell v. Coca-Cola Co. , No. CA-96-768 (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 1996). 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
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10451]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; 
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one 
portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
    Name of Committee: Vaccines and Related Biological Products 
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 16, 2001, from 8 
a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and May 17, 2001, from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn, Grand Ballroom, Two Montgomery Village Ave., 
Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact: Nancy T. Cherry or Denise H. Royster, Center for Biologics 
Evaluations and Research (HFM-71), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-0314, or FDA Advisory 
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138, (301-443-0572 in the 
Washington, DC area), code 12391. Please call the Information Line for 
up-to-date information on this meeting.
    Agenda: On May 16, 2001, the committee will discuss adventitious 
agent testing, tumorigenicity testing, and issues related to residual 
cell substrate deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of novel and neoplastic cell 
substrates used to manufacture viral vaccines.
    Procedure: On May 16, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., the meeting 
is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, 
information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before 
the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person by 
May 8, 2001. Oral presentations from the public will be held between 
approximately 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Time allotted for each 
presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral 
presentations should notify the contact person before May 8, 2001, and 
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or 
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed 
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to 
make their presentation.
    Closed Committee Deliberations: On May 16, 2001, from 8 a.m. to 9 
a.m. and on May 17, 2001, from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., the meeting will be 
closed to permit discussion and review of trade secret and/or 
confidential information (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)).
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 19, 2001.
Linda A. Suydam,
Senior Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 01-10451 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN LOUIS HIRATA, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. GAIL LEWIS, Respondent - Appellee. No. 06-55436 D.C. No. CV-03-00504-NM
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Nora M. Manella, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2009 ** Before: SKOPIL, LEAVY, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Steven Loui s Hirata appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. 

# FILED
MAR 10 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Hirata contends that the trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by admitting into evid ence prior uncharged conduct, tending to show propensity to commit the charged o ffenses. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75 n. 5 (1991); Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-7 (9th Cir. 2006). Hirata also contends that the pros ecutor engaged in misconduct by eliciting profile evidence and improper expert testimony, and that the trial court compounded that misconduct by admitting this evidence in violation of his due process rights. We conclude that the stat e court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable appli cation of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168, 181-3 (1986); Briceno v. Scribner, 555 F.3d 1069, 1077-8 (9th Cir. 2009); Drayden v. White, 232 F.3d 704, 713-4 (9th Cir. 2000). To the extent Hirata raises uncertified i ssues in his briefs, we construe those contentions as a motion to expand the cer tificate of appealability and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-5 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).3 AFFIRMED.