alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

HISKIA BILLY and ALVIN LENDE

BILLY,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70245

Agency Nos. A078-020-248

 A078-020-308

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 2, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Hiskia and Alvin Lende Billy, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion

to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse

FILED

AUG 8 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70245

of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey,

514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ July 6, 2009,

motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed over three years after the

BIA’s February 15, 2006, final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).

In light of our disposition, we need not consider petitioners’ contention that

the BIA’s original analysis regarding whether they were members of a disfavored

group was erroneous under Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), and

Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 690 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 690

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from 
                  listed property under section 280F.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2009

  Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Herger, Mr. 
     Cantor, Ms. Schwartz, Mrs. Bono Mack, and Ms. Zoe Lofgren of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from 
                  listed property under section 280F.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Modernize Our Bookkeeping In the Law 
for Employee's Cell Phone Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES (OR SIMILAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
              EQUIPMENT) FROM LISTED PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 280F(d)(4) of the 
Internal Revenue Code (defining listed property) is amended by 
inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (iv), by striking clause (v), 
and by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (v).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after January 1, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10668

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES L. WILD,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CV-0177-X

- - - - - - - - - -

February 2, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 James L. Wild’s, federal prisoner # 44968-019, motion for

leave to file a brief in excess of the page limit is GRANTED. 

Wild appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new

trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. We have reviewed the

record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated by the

magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. See United

States v. Wild, No. 3-94-CR-0177-X (N.D. Tex., May 22, 1998). 

Wild’s remaining motions are DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By notice dated August 18, 2000, and published in the Federal 
Register on September 6, 2000, (65 FR 54071) Salsbury Chemicals, Inc., 
1205 11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616-3466, made application to 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an 
importer of phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of controlled substance 
listed in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to import phenylacetone to manufacture amphetamine 
for distribution to its customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and 
determined that the registration of Salsbury Chemicals, Inc. is 
consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations 
under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on 
May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Salsbury Chemicals, 
Inc. to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent 
with the public interest. This investigation included inspection and 
testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the 
Company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the 
company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to section 
1008(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act and in 
accordance with title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, section 1301.34, 
the above firm is granted registration as an importer of the basic 
class of controlled substance listed above.

    Dated: April 13, 2001.
Laura M. Nagel,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-10257 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### O’BRIEN, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

April 13, 1894.)

Action by Michael O’Brien against Robert J. Smith. E. W. S. Johnson, for appei.aut. VY. Hughes, lor lespondeut.

Opinion per cur am: uuC published, by order of the court. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# CE2010046EN.01012401.xml

| 24.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 46/124 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 46/124

---

Placing of plant protection products on the market ***II

P6_TA(2009)0011

P6_TA(2009)0011

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 January 2009 on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (11119/8/2008 – C6-0326/2008 – 2006/0136(COD))

(2010/C 46 E/26)

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Council common position (11119/8/2008 – C6-0326/2008) (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council common position (11119/8/2008 – C6-0326/2008) (1),

1

| — | having regard to its position at first reading (2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0388), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position at first reading (2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0388),

2

| — | having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2008)0093), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2008)0093),

| — | having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

| — | having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0444/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0444/2008),

| 1. | Approves the common position as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the common position as amended;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 266 E, 21.10.2008, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 263 E, 16.10.2008, p.181.

2

---

P6_TC2-COD(2006)0136

Position of the European Parliament adopted at second reading on 13 January 2009 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position ati second reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EC) No ...)

---
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to the Yearly Report on Form
10-KSB of Futomic Industries, Inc. for the year ending December 31, 2003, I,
Francisco Schipperheijn, Chief Executive Officer of Futomic Industries, Inc.
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:


     1.   Such Yearly Report of Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
          2003, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the
          year ended December 31, 2003, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Futomic
          Industries, Inc.



Dated:    January 27, 2005


FUTOMIC INDUSTRIES, INC.

By:  /s/ Francisco Schipperheijn
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### *In re*CAPRIOTTI, Laurence Wayne

(MR 21086)

Chicago, IL

*685Order of the Court:

The motion by Laurence Wayne Capriotti to strike his name from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Illinois pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(a) is allowed, effective immediately.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

y1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143393 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143393 

 COA: 302708 

Allegan CC: 08-015856-FH 

GERALD WILLIAM PAYNE, JR., 08-015874-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of Freedom Resources Enterprises,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Neil  Christiansen,  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  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;  and

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




Date:  November  12,  2002                    /s/ Neil  Christiansen
                                              ------------------------
                                              Chief  Executive  Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10833]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3648]


Designation of Countries of Particular Concern Under the 
International Religious Freedom Act

    Pursuant to section 408(a) of the International Religious Freedom 
Act of 1998, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of State, under 
authority delegated by the President, has re-designated the following 
countries as ``countries of particular concern'' under section 402(b) 
of the Act for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe 
violations of religious freedom: Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan.

    Dated: April 16, 2001.
Thomas F. Farr,
Office Director for International Religious Freedom, Bureau of 
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 01-10833 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-18-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2594

KEITH PEDDIE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE;

MARY K. HOWERTON, individually and in her

official capacity; CHARLES R. MOBLEY,

individually and in his official capacity;

JAMES R. STARKEY, individually and in his

official capacity; GATE CITY TOWING COMPANY,

INCORPORATED; WILLIAM WASHAM, individually and

in his official capacity; POLICE OFFICER

RAHENKAMP, individually and in his official

capacity; JOHN DOES, 1-10, individually and in

their official capacities; CITY OF GREENSBORO;

ALL DEFENDANTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 98-1406

KEITH PEDDIE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
2

POLICE OFFICER RAHENKAMP, individually and in

his official capacity; CITY OF GREENSBORO,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE;

MARY K. HOWERTON, individually and in her

official capacity; CHARLES R. MOBLEY,

individually and in his official capacity;

JAMES R. STARKEY, individually and in his

official capacity; GATE CITY TOWING COMPANY,

INCORPORATED; WILLIAM WASHAM, individually and

in his official capacity; JOHN DOES, 1-10,

individually and in their official capacities;

ALL DEFENDANTS,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CA-96-634-2)

Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Peddie, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Farber, Sara S.

Holderness, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;

Lindsay Reeves Davis, Jr., HILL, EVANS, DUNCAN, JORDAN & DAVIS,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), complaint and imposing attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $3709.26. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the

district court. See Peddie v. United States, No. CA-96-634-2

(M.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 1997; Jan. 30, 1998). We note that Appellant

failed to establish that the United States waived immunity under 26

U.S.C.A. § 7433(a) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998), because Appellant

failed to establish that the United States recklessly or intentionally violated any provision of the Internal Revenue Code. 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
# FILED September 30, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE MARCH SESSION, 1997
JO E G LAS GO W , JR ., ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9603-CC-00092 ) Ap pella nt, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY ) V. ) ) HON. WAL TER C . KURTZ , JUDGE ST ATE OF TE NN ES SE E, ) ) Appell ee. ) (PO ST -CO NV ICTIO N)


### SEPA RA

TE OPI NION CONCURRI NG IN PA RT AND DISSENTING IN PART
I con cur w ith Pa rts I an d III of Ju dge Tip ton’s opin ion. Ho we ver, I
m ust re spe ctfully dis sen t from Pa rt II of the o pinio n.

The tr ial courtwas correct i n holdi ng thatany i ssue regarding t he
m erits of the search i ssue or the eff ectiv eness o f Pet it ioner ’s t ri al couns el has b een pre vious ly dete rm ined . Th is fact w as a ckn ow ledg ed b y the m ajority opini on. Ho we ver, as I u nd ers tan d th e m ajo rity op inio n, P etitio ne r is sti ll enti tl ed to again raise t hese i ss ues by al legi ng ineffect iv e assi stance of counsel who repres ented Peti ti oner i n the moti on fornew tr ial heari ng. Def endant pursued a
course of acti on which thi s courthas prev iousl y observed t o be unwise; he chose to all ege ineffect ive assi stance of couns el attr ial in hi s motion fornew tr ial and in his d irec t ap pe al, rath er th an wa iting to file tha t claim in his f irst post -convi cti on peti ti on. See State v. Jo seph Clyde B eard, Jr. , No. 03 C01- 9502-CR-000044, Sull iv an Co un ty (T en n. C rim . Ap p., K no xvil le , Se pt. 26 , 199 6); KirbyGeorge-2-

W allace v. St ate , No . 0 1C01- 9308 -CC- 0027 5, Ste wart Co unty ( Tenn. Cri m. Ap p. , Nashvil le, Se pt. 15 , 199 4); Sta te v. J im m y L. S lu der , No . 123 6, Kn ox C oun ty (Ten n. Crim . App., K noxville, Marc h 14, 1 990 ).

The Peti ti onerwa s giv en a fu ll opp ortun ityto be heard on the search issue and the i ssue of ineffect iv e assi stance of counsel at hi s tr ial . He was aff orded the op po rtun it y to p resen t evidenc e and argum ent, and the trial court deter mined thatthe i ssues were meri tl ess, and thi s was aff ir med up on revie w in this court . Thus t he ult imate i ssues, the i neff ecti ve assi stance of counsel duri ng the tr ial and the s earc h issu e, ha ve be en p reviou sly de term ined
. See Ho use v. Sta te , 911 S.W .2d 7 05, 7 10-1 1 (T enn . 199 5).

I would affi rm the j udgment of t he tr ial courtdismis sing t he peti ti on forpost- convi cti on rel iefexceptinsofar as t he judgment i n Sta te v. Joe Gl asgow, Jr. , No. 01-C-01- 9102-CC-00082, Davidson County (Tenn. Cri m. App. Oct. 10, 1991) is vacated and reinst ated upon date of the f il ing ofthe opin ion o f this co urt, in order to affo rd t he Peti ti oner t he opport unity tofi le f or appl icat ion f or perm ission to ap pea l to the s upre m e co urt.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge
Exhibit
      23.1








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
      Statements:





1.
            Registration
                Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-127720) of O2Diesel
                Corporation,





2.
            Registration
                Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-136119) of O2Diesel Corporation,





3.
            Registration
                Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-136121) of O2Diesel
                Corporation





and
      in
      the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 31, 2006, with respect to
      the
      financial statements of O2Diesel Corporation for the year ended December 31,
      2005 and for the period from October 14, 2000 (inception) through December
      31,
      2005 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December
      31, 2006.







/s/ Ernst & Young
              LLP





Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania


March
      26,
      2007
#### BARRETT & DOUGHTY, Inc., et al. v. AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF MACON et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

December 19, 1913.)

Petition to Superintend and Revise, in Matter of Law, Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina ; Henry A. Middleton Smith, Judge.

In the matter of the bankruptcy proceedings against H. D. Still’s Sons, alleged bankrupts. On petition by Barrett & Doughty, Inc., and others, creditors of the bankrupt, against the American National Bank of Macon and others, to superintend and revise in matters of law an adjudication against petitioners.

Dismissed, without prejudice.

Alexander Akerman, of Macon, Ga., and R. J. Southall, of Augusta, Ga., for petitioners.

George S. Jones, of Mae’on, Ga., and William H. Fleming, of Augusta, Ga. (Jas. A. Willis and H. L. O’Bannon, both of Barnwell, S. C., W. H. Townsend, of Columbia, S. G., and James Simons and Julian Mitchell, both of Charleston, S. C., on the brief), for respondents.

Before PRITCHARD and KNAPP, Circuit, Judges, and CONNOR, District Judge.

KNAPP, Circuit Judge.

As the decision of this court in No. 1,175, H. D. Still’s Sons v. American National Bank et al., 209 Fed. 749, will have the effect of securing to petitioners, the relief sought’in this proceeding, the petition herein will be dismissed without prejudice.
# Fourth Court of A ppeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00720

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF N.D.,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- MH

- 3263

Honorable Polly Jackson Sp encer, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's first motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to January 5, 2015.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand an d affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court