alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Serguei MITINE, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 12-13638

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 30, 2013.

Andy Gene Strickland, The National Immigration Law Group, PLLC, St. Peters-burg, FL, for Petitioner.

Franklin M. Johnson, Jr., David V. Ber-nal, Krystal Samuels, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Nicole Guzman, DHS, Office of Chief Counsel, Orlando, FL, for Respondent.

*852Before CARNES, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Serguei Mitine seeks review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Mitine argues that the Board erred in affirming the immigration judge’s decision without issuing its own separate opinion because he presented new legal issues to the Board that the Board failed to address.

One member of the Board can issue an affirmance of the immigration judge’s decision without an opinion if:

> [T]he Board member determines that the result reached in the decision under review was correct; that any errors in the decision under review were harmless or nonmaterial; and that ... [t]he issues on appeal are squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court precedent and do not involve the application of precedent to a novel factual situation; or ... [t]he factual and legal issues raised on appeal are not so substantial that the case warrants the issuance of a written opinion in the case.

8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i). The Board did not err in affirming the immigration judge’s decision without issuing an opinion. Mitine fails to demonstrate that the Board violated its regulation in issuing this summary affirmance.

When the Board issues a summary affir-mance of the immigration judge’s opinion, we review the immigration judge’s opinion. *Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir.2005). Mitine contends that the immigration judge’s decision denying relief on his claim for asylum and withholding of removal is “not clear.” (Pet’r’s Br. at 18.) But, we conclude that the immigration judge did not err in denying relief because Mitine has not demonstrated eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. Nor has he demonstrated eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Finally, we reject Mitine’s argument that the immigration judge erroneously designated Russia as Mitine’s country of removal. An alien may be removed to “[t]he country in which the alien’s birthplace is located,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E)(vi), regardless of whether the country accepts him, *Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement,*543 U.S. 335, 342, 125 S.Ct. 694, 700, 160 L.Ed.2d 708 (2005). Mitine testified that he was born in what is present-day Russia. (Admin. R. at 100-02.)

PETITION DENIED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000802

26-JUL-2016

09:05 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1599

RODNEY L. CHERRY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF WILSON; WILSON POLICE DEPARTMENT;

D. H. GARRIS, Officer; S. L. GARDNER, Officer;

WILLIE WILLIAMS, Chief,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 01-1674

RODNEY L. CHERRY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DORIS JONES, National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-01-43-4-H, CA-01-44-4-H)

Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney L. Cherry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Rodney L. Cherry appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil actions as frivolous. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinions which have been consolidated on

appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Cherry

v. City of Wilson, No. CA-01-43-4-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2001);

Cherry v. Jones, No. CA-01-44-4-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2001). To the

extent it is unclear, we note that the court’s dismissals are to be

without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1996). Cherry’s “motion for

remand” 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
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Company.
 Dated: May 2, 2011
    /s/ Harpreet S. GrewalHarpreet S. GrewalExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer 40
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-K of Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David G. Gaw, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 the results of operations of the Company.

|                      |  | Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc.
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                      |  | By:                                     
|Dated: March 10, 2005 |  |                                         

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2454 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2454

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 123 East Sharpfish Street in Rosebud, South Dakota, as the ``Ben 
                     Reifel Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BEN REIFEL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 123 East Sharpfish Street in Rosebud, South Dakota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Ben Reifel Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ben Reifel 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2454

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 123 East Sharpfish Street in Rosebud, South Dakota, as the ``Ben 
                     Reifel Post Office Building''.
```
#### In the Matter of Erin C., Respondent-Appellant, v Peter H., Appellant-Respondent.

Submitted January 4, 2010;

decided May 4, 2010

On the Court’s own motion, appeal by Peter H. dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the two-Justice dissent at the Appellate Division is not on a question of law (CPLR 5601 [a]). Motion by Erin C. for leave to appeal denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 906 Certification of Michael F. Crowley, Jr.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C SECTION 1350



The undersigned, Michael F. Crowley, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, hereby certifies that:



(i) the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



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



Dated: December 22, 2003

/s/    MICHAEL F. CROWLEY, JR.Michael F. Crowley, Jr. Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,675-01

EX PARTE ERIC ALFREDO BERRIOS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 933712-A IN THE 176TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). A jury convicted Applicant of capital murder

in 2002, and a life sentence in prison was assessed. 

Applicant filed a pro se habeas application in the trial court on November 7, 2008, and

habeas counsel filed a supplemental habeas application on December 28, 2012. The trial court has

entered findings on these habeas applications and recommends that habeas relief be denied. The

findings and recommendation are supported by the habeas record. Applicant filed another pro se

habeas application in the trial court on April 3, 2019. There are no findings or recommendation as
2

to its claims, but this Court’s review of the habeas record shows that the claims lack merit. Based

on the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as this Court’s independent review

of the habeas records, habeas relief is denied.

Filed: June 5, 2019

Do not publish
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-11-00138- CV In re Mic hael T. Brugmann ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM B ASTROP CO UNTY M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Filed: Mar ch 24, 2011
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,766]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on March 5, 2001, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Spec Cast, Dyersville, Iowa.

An active certification covering the petitioning group of workers at the subject firm remains in effect (TA-W-38,714). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day of May, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-13222  Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00384

- CR

Wallace Best

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 1

o f Tarrant County (1320232D )

October 17, 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
Exhibit32

|                         | Vemics,Inc.(Registrant) |                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                    |                                                                                                                                                                                       |   |
| Date:      February 22, 2010 | By:                     | /s/ Fred      Zolla                            |   |
|                         |                    | Fred      Zolla                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
|                         |                    | President      and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                         |                    | (Principal      Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                                         |   |

|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
| Date: February      22, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Craig      Stout                              |   |
|                                   |   | Craig      Stout                                                                                                                                                                                        |   |
|                                   |   | Chief      Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
|                                   |   | (Principal      Accounting Officer)                                                                                                                                                                     |   |

----
#### In re RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

Misc. No. 10-06.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Nov. 17, 2006.

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, HAGEL, MOORMAN, LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

ORDER

WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR., Chief Judge:

Pursuant to the authority of 38 U.S.C. §§ 7263(b) and 7264(a) and consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 2071(b) and (e), the Court has adopted a clerical revision to Rule 39(a) of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). It is

ORDERED that the phrase “a jurisdictional requirement” shall be stricken from Rule 39(a) and that, accordingly, the attached change to Rule 39(a) is hereby published and will be effective as of this date.

> RULE 39. ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES

> (a) Application. An application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) for award of attorney fees and/or other expenses in a case must be filed with the Clerk not later than 30 days after the Court’s judgment become final *501pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7291(a) (which occurs 60 days after entry of judgment under Rule 36) or, consistent with Rule 41(b), upon the issuance of an order on consent dismissing, terminating, or remanding a case. The time (which is a jurisdictional requirement set by the statute) for filing an application under this subsection may not be extended. See Rule 25 (filing and service). The application must include the fees and expenses claimed for the submission of that application.
151 So. 919

#### BIRMINGHAM BELT R. CO. v. Harlan Thomas GRAHAM, pro ami.

6 Div. 470.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 1, 1933.

Cabaniss & Johnston, of Birmingham, for appellant.

John W. Altman, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded by agreement.
From: Espinoza-Vera, Barbara To: coa4notices Cc: Espinoza-Vera, Barbara Subject: Mandate Receipt Acknowledgement - Case No. 04-14-00198-CR [ DATE 6/10/2015] Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:43:14 AM


# RE: Case No. 04-14-00198-CR [ DATE 6/10/2015 ] Pursuant to Rule 51.2(a)(1) T.R.A.P., I hereby acknowledge receipt of the mandate of the Fourth Court of Appeals via this email response.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1152

___________

Billy Tyler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Joseph Caniglia, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2012

Filed: May 8, 2012

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Billy Tyler appeals the district court’s1

 preservice dismissal of his civil

complaint. After careful review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court properly

dismissed the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.
EXHIBIT 5



FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.

200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000

Minneapolis, Minnesota  55402



Telephone:  (612) 492-7000

Facsimile:  (612) 492-7077





August 28, 2007





Scanner Technologies Corporation

14505 21st Ave. N., Suite 220

Minneapolis, MN  55447



Re:Registration Statement on Form S-8




Ladies/Gentlemen:



We are acting as corporate counsel to Scanner Technologies Corporation (the Company) in connection with the original registration by the Company on Form S-8 (the Registration Statement) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Act) of options and an aggregate of 3,800,000 shares (the Shares) of Common Stock issuable pursuant to the Companys 2004 Equity Incentive Plan (the Plan).



In acting as such counsel and for the purpose of rendering this opinion, we have reviewed copies of the following, as presented to us by the Company:



1.
        The Companys Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended.




2.
        The Companys Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended.




3.
        Certain corporate resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors and shareholders of the Company pertaining to the adoption and approval of the Plan.




4.
        The Plan.




5.
        The Registration Statement.




Based on, and subject to, the foregoing and upon representations and information provided by the Company or its officers or directors, it is our opinion as of this date that:



---

1.
        The Shares are validly authorized by the Companys Articles of Incorporation, as amended.




2.
        Upon issuance and delivery of the Shares against receipt by the Company of the consideration for the Shares pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Shares will be validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.




We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement.






Very truly yours,FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.By
        /s/ Robert K. RanumRobert K. Ranum






4188486



---