alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pedro ARENAS-CELAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70250.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 11, 2010.

Manuel Rios, III, Rios & Cruz, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

*652Patrick James Glen, Esquire, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *652*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Arenas-Celaya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and de novo due process claims, *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arenas-Celaya’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s May 19, 2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Arenas-Celaya failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). It follows that Arenas-Celaya’s due process claim fails. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

To the extent Arenas-Celaya challenges the BIA’s October 27, 2003, order dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*653ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit EX-99.906CERT

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)**

In connection with the attached Report of Fidelity Devonshire Trust  (the "Trust") onForm N-CSR to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),each of the undersigned officers of the Trust does hereby certify that, to the best of suchofficer's knowledge:

1.	The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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 Trust as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Report.

Dated:	October 7, 2009

Dated:	October 7, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typedform within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. H. H. HEARD 

DOCKET NUMBER: 9 

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1938 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

C.E.A. DOCKET NO. 9 

Secretary of Agriculture, Complainant, v. H. H. Heard, Respondent. 

Complaint and Notice of Hearing under Section 6(b) of Commodity Exchange Act. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that H. H. Heard has 

violated the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. and Supp. III, Secs. 1-17a) and 

the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and therefore issues 

this complaint, alleging the following: 

1. 

H. H. Heard is an individual whose business address is 117A West Evans 

Street, Florence, South Carolina. 

2. 

H. H. Heard registered with the Secretary of Agriculture as futures 

commission merchant under the set for the period ending December 31, 1938, and 

such registration has not been suspended or revoked. 

3. 

Continuously from January 1, 1938, to June 23, 1938, H. H. Heard engaged as 

futures commission merchant in soliciting and accepting orders for the purchase 

and sale of commodities named in said act for future delivery on and subject to 

the rules of contract markets, accepting money in connection with such 

solicitation and acceptance of orders, without segregating the funds of 

customers as required by the act. Such failure to segregate resulted in 

shortages in customers' segregated funds of $ 2,150.21 on February 28, 1938, $ 

2,010.23 on March 31, 1938, $ 148.20 on April 30, 1938, $ 177.72 on May 31, 

1938, and various other amounts on other dates during the period concerned. 

Therefore, Respondent H. H. Heard is hereby notified to be and appear at a 

hearing to be held at 10 o'clock a.m., on the 10th day of September, 1938, in 

Room 1832, South Building, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., before 

a referee to be designated by the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct such 

hearing, and then and there show cause, if any there be, why an order should not 

be made revoking his registration as futures commission merchant and directing 

that all contract markets, until further notice by the Secretary of Agriculture, 

refuse all trading privileges to such respondent. 

IT IS ORDERED That this complaint and notice of hearing be served on 

Respondent H. H. Heard by delivery of a true copy hereof 

to him, by an employe of the Department of Agriculture or by registered mail at 

least three days prior to the date herein set for the hearing. 
Page 2 

IN WITNESS THEREBY, the Secretary of Agriculture has [ILLEGIBLE TEXT] set his 

[ILLEGIBLE TEXT] and [ILLEGIBLE TEXT] the official seal of the Department of 

Agriculture to be affixed in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, on 

the 31st day of August, [ILLEGIBLE TEXT]. 

[ILLEGIBLE TEXT] 

(Signed) 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Acting Secretary of Agriculture 

LOAD-DATE: June 11, 2008 
Page 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JIMMIE CRAIG DANIELS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:07-cr-00341-RBH-1; 4:09-cv-70078-RBH)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmie Craig Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Day, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmie Craig Daniels seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion and denying his motion to amend. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Daniels has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
H. Res. 1433 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 22, 2010. 

Whereas blood-related cancers currently afflict more than 

900,000 people in the United States, with an estimated 

150,000 new cases diagnosed each year; 

Whereas leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative disorders will 

kill more than 50,000 people in the United States this 

year; 

Whereas Congress, in the National Cancer Act, established 

an aggressive Federal program for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer; 

Whereas Congress has maintained a steady investment in 

cancer research to answer basic questions about the 

causes of cancer and to develop new treatments for cancer; 

Whereas the Federal investment in cancer research and control has contributed to important progress in understanding and treating some blood cancers and yielded significant advances in survival for some forms of blood cancer; 

Whereas continued investment and innovation is critical to 

the early diagnosis and the more effective and safer 
2 

•HRES 1433 EH 

treatment for blood cancers where research and treatment advances have to date been limited; 

Whereas strategies to enhance and strengthen the cancer 

clinical research program and boost participation in clinical trials are necessary to achieve blood cancer treatment 

advances; 

Whereas survivors of blood cancer may experience serious late 

and long-term effects of their treatment and may need 

life-long follow-up and survivorship care; 

Whereas Congress has provided strong support to blood cancer research and has focused special attention on increasing awareness of blood cancers and intensifying the blood 

cancer research program; 

Whereas the House of Representatives will continue to provide support for research for a cure for leukemia, 

lymphoma, multiple myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, 

and myeloproliferative disorders; and 

Whereas September 2010 would be an appropriate month to 

designate as Blood Cancer Awareness Month: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the designation of Blood Cancer 

Awareness Month to enhance the understanding of 

blood-related cancers, increase support for funding research to find a cure for blood cancers, encourage studies of the cause and prevention of blood cancers to reduce the number of new cases, and enhance understanding of clinical trials to boost provider and patient 

participation and accelerate the pace of clinical research; 
3 

•HRES 1433 EH 

(2) encourages participation in voluntary activities 

to support blood cancer research and education; and 

(3) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House to 

transmit a copy of this resolution to the American Society of Hematology, the International Myeloma Foundation, the Lymphoma Research Foundation, the Multiple 

Myeloma Research Foundation, and The Leukemia & 

Lymphoma Society, voluntary health organizations dedicated to finding a cure for blood cancers. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### PRALL et al. v. HARPER.

(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted March 9, 1922.

Decided June 5, 1922.)

No. 3707.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Suit by Elizabeth C. Prall against Jennie M. Prall and others for partition. Prom an order appointing Albert Harper as receiver to take possession of the property, defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

Emma P. Knorr, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Albert Harper, George W. OfCutt, Jr., and Charles V. Imlay, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

YAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, appointing a receiver to take possession of the property belonging to the Prall estate.

*586This Is a companion case to No. 3706, this day decided. The judgment ent tered herein is embraced in the general order made in Lavagnino v. Prall et al., App. D. C. -, 281 Fed. 581, granting the petition for review, and vacating all orders and decrees made in the original case, equity cause No. 24579.

The judgment is'reversed, with costs, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion cf this court.
Exhibit 32

                Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") by Global Payment Technologies, Inc.
("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of
their 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 Registrant.



                                      s/Stephen Nevitt
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Stephen Nevitt
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer


                                     s/Thomas McNeill
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Thomas McNeill
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer







Date: December 16, 2005
      -----------------



A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
has been provided to Global Payment Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Global Payment Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Hunts Point Terminal Produce Cooperative Association, Inc., Respondent, v New York City Business Integrity Commission et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

[874 NYS2d 909]

— Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered December 3, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs and appellant’s letter of March 9, 2009, directed respondents New York City Business Integrity Commission (BIG) and Thomas McCormack, within 90 days after entry of the order, to initiate rulemaking of regulations establishing bonding and waste disposal requirements unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the direction vacated.

Since petitioner did not request that BIC and McCormack (BIC’s then-chair) initiate rulemaking, Supreme Court should not have granted that relief *(Matter of Nozzleman 60, LLC v Village Bd. of Vil. of Cold Spring,*34 AD3d 680, 681 [2006], *lv denied*9 NY3d 803 [2007]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Buckley, McGuire, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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  accompanying  Form 10-K of  Community  Bank  Shares of
Indiana,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the year ended December 31, 2006, I, Paul A
Chrisco,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Community  Bank Shares of Indiana,  Inc.,
hereby certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1) Such Form 10-K for the 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

(2) The information  contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2006 fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operation of the Company.


By:   /s/ Paul A. Chrisco
    ----------------------------------
      Paul A. Chrisco
      Senior Vice President,
      Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 29, 2007

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.

This  certification  shall not be deemed  filed by the Company  for  purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Norberto ROBLES, Petitioner-Appellant v. Joe D. DRIVER, Warden, Houston Federal Detention Center, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-20270

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 29, 2010.

Norberto Robles, Houston, TX, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:10-CV-694.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Norberto Robles, federal prisoner # 82724-179, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court determined that Robles’ § 2241 petition was premature because his claims were directed to his criminal proceeding, which was active. We note that the district court appears to have treated Robles’ pleading as arising under § 2241, not § 2255. *See Castro v. United States,*540 U.S. 375, 383, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003). Robles’ brief is entirely devoted to the merits of his claims for relief. Although he asserts that he properly sought habeas relief pursuant to § 2241 because he filed his petition prior *945to being sentenced, Robles provides no explanation for his conclusory assertion. By failing to address the basis for the district court’s dismissal, Robles has abandoned the threshold issue in this appeal. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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


      In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of GreenMan
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended September
30, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Lyle Jensen, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: February 5, 2008

/s/ Lyle Jensen
---------------
Lyle Jensen
President and Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: J. F. FREEMAN & CO., INC., JAY A. NOVAK, AND IRVING A. OLSHEVER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 186 

DATE: APRIL 19, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER GRANTING AMEDMENTS TO COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re J. F. Freeman & Co., Inc., Jay A. Novak, and Irving A. Olshever, 

Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 186 

Order Granting Amendments to Complaint 

On April 19, 1972 complainant filed, pursuant to section 0.5(C) of the rules 

of practice (17 CFR 0.1 et seq.), a Motion to Amend Complaint, together with the 

amendments to the complaint. The complain was filed initially in this 

proceeding on September 28, 1971. 

At the last session of the hearing in this proceeding on March 7, 1971, 

counsel for complainant moved orally for leave to amend (transcript pp. 1192 and 

1194). The motion was granted (transcript p. 1201) and the hearing was recessed 

until May 11, 1972, to permit time for the filing of the amendments, and answers 

with the a Hearing Clerk (transcript pp. 1209 and 1213). 

Accordingly, the further written motion filed on April 19, 1972, to amend the 

complaint is granted and the complaint is considered amended in accordance with 

and as specified in said motion. 

Respondents will have 20 days after service of the motion and amendments to 

the complaint to file their answers. 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

John A. Campbell 

Referee 

April 19, 1972 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
S06A1753.

#### WATKINS v. RUTLAND et al.

(640 SE2d 289)

Melton, Justice.

This case involves a dispute concerning title to land located primarily in a lot described as lot 143 in the 26th land district of Wilkinson County, Georgia. Although James Watkins’ chain of title describes his land as lying in land lot 197 of the 26th land district, Watkins filed a Petition to Quiet Title contending that his chain of title was meant to convey disputed land in and around lot 143, not land located in lot 197. Warren Rutland, the purported owner of the disputed land, opposed the petition. The parties stipulated that a special master would receive evidence by deposition, legal briefs, documents, and the testimony of one witness for each party to resolve the dispute. Following a hearing at which Watkins testified, the special master concluded that Watkins had no right, title, or interest in the disputed land. The Superior Court of Bibb County adopted the special master’s report in reaching the same conclusion as the special master. Watkins appeals from this order.

Watkins contends that the findings of the special master and the trial court are contrary to the law and the evidence. “However, since no transcript was made of the proceeding before the special master in which the facts of the case were established, the special master’s findings on which the trial court’s judgment was based cannot be reviewed.” (Citation omitted.) *Johnson v. Red Hill Assoc.,*278 Ga. 334, 336 (3) (602 SE2d 572) (2004). Indeed, Watkins himself testified at the hearing before the special master, and the special master specifically considered this testimony in reaching his conclusions. Without *536a transcript of the testimony that the special master considered below, the trial court’s judgment cannot be reviewed.

Decided January 22, 2007.

*Bush, Crowley, Leverett & Leggett, J. Wayne Crowley,*for appellant.

*Moore Law Firm, H. David Moore, Lisa R. Coody, Jones, Cork & Miller, Howard J. Strickland, Jr.,*for appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to July 23, 2019)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-19-035 State v. Locke

A-19-093,

A-19-094,

A-19-095 State v. Pena

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.