alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6727
LEROY JEROME SMYRE, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (2:05-cv-00426-WDK) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Jerome Smyre, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Leroy Jerome Smyre seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smyre that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Smyre failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the district court dismiss Smyre’s petition as barred by the statute of limitations. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see alsoThomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smyre has waived appellate review of the district court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s timeliness determination because, despite receiving proper notice, Smyre failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s finding that his petition was time-barred. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.- 3 - 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.

DISMISSED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ziaunnisa K. Lodhi v. Shah A. Haque

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 0 0 349

- CV

Trial court case number: 201 8

- 03243

Trial court: 507 th District Court of Harris County

On October 22, 2019 , appellant, Ziaunnisa K. Lodhi , filed h er appellant’s brief. Appellee, Shah A. Haque

, had a briefing deadline of November 21, 201 9 in which to file hi s brief, but no

brief has been filed . On December 4, 2019 , we notified appellee that we would set the case for submission without an appellee’s brief unless appellee filed (1) a motion to extend time to file its brief or (2) its brief accompanied by a motion to extend time. Appellee has neither filed a motion

to extend time or his appellee’s brief. Accordingly, the case is hereby set at issue.

The time for filing the APPELLEE’S brief has expired. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 38.6(b). Further, appellee’s deadline for responding to the notice issued b y this Court on December 4 , 201 9

, requiring appellee to file either a brief or a motion to extend time to file its brief, has expired. Accordingly, this case is now at issue and ready to be set for submission.

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Sherry Radack

_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____ February 6, 2020

___
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1199 

Expressing support for designation of March 20, 2010, as National American 

Meat and Poultry Appreciation Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2010 

Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. 

EHLERS, Mr. UPTON, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, and Mr. MCCOTTER) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of March 20, 2010, as 

National American Meat and Poultry Appreciation Day. 

Whereas the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes that 

a wholesome serving of lean meat provides a rich source 

of iron, magnesium, zinc, niacin, selenium, riboflavin, and 

B-vitamins, as well as all 9 essential amino acids that 

contribute to healthy growth and metabolism and good 

overall health; 

Whereas every year, the United States meat and poultry industry introduces hundreds of new, lean, low-fat, fat-free, 

and reduced sodium meat products, making it the healthiest and most diverse meat products market in the world; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1199 IH 

Whereas people in the United States spend approximately 1.5 

percent of disposable income on meat and poultry products, down from 4.1 percent in 1970, making meat and 

poultry an increasingly affordable food option; 

Whereas with nearly 8,000 Federal inspectors that oversee 

6,200 meat plants nationwide, people in the United 

States can be confident that the meat and poultry they 

consume is safe and wholesome; 

Whereas in 2009, the meat and poultry industry was responsible for generating 6,192,639 United States jobs; 

Whereas $832,404,399,973 was contributed to the United 

States economy in 2009 by the United States meat and 

poultry industry, an amount totaling nearly 6 percent of 

the national gross domestic product; and 

Whereas March 20, 2010, would be an appropriate date to 

establish as National American Meat and Poultry Appreciation Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of National Amer3 ican Meat and Poultry Appreciation Day; 

4 (2) honors and recognizes the contributions 

5 made by the farmers, ranchers, processors, packers, 

6 and other meat and poultry industry employees; and 

7 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

8 to observe and partake in National American Meat 

9 and Poultry Appreciation Day to promote awareness 

10 of the contributions of the industry, the nutritious 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1199 IH 

1 value of its products, and the strict food safety 

2 standards to which it adheres. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register: July 21, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 39074]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy98-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND PLACE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 7, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Confernece
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-19527 Filed 7-17-98; 3:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
#### Cheryl J. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ken SALAZAR,* Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-16581.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.**

Filed Oct. 5, 2010.

*191Cheryl J. Riley, Yuma, AZ, pro se.

Peter Michael Lantka, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Under Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Ken Salazar is substituted for his predecessor, Dirk Kempt-horne, as Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Cheryl J. Riley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging race and sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims because Riley failed to raise a triable issue as to whether similarly situated employees were treated more favorably, in particular as to whether her proposed comparators were similarly situated. *See Leong v. Potter,*347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir.2003); *Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 641-42 (9th Cir.2003). Riley also failed to offer direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent. *See Vasquez,*349 F.3d at 640.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim because for each of the allegedly retaliatory actions, Riley failed to raise a triable issue as to whether her employer subjected her to an adverse employment decision, or whether there was a causal link between her protected activity and the employer’s action. *See Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA,*339 F.3d 792, 800-04 (9th Cir.2003).

As to the hostile work environment claim, Riley offered evidence that a supervisor made grunting noises at her, stared *192at her breasts, called her a “bitch” and hit the back of her chair, humiliated Riley during meetings, violated the terms of a cooling-off period agreement, made sexist and discriminatory comments, and engaged in other offensive conduct. Taken together, Riley raised a triable issue as to whether the conduct was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment and create an abusive work environment.” *See Vasquez,*349 F.3d at 642. We therefore reverse as to this claim, and remand for further proceedings.

Riley’s motion to augment the record, filed on March 25, 2009, is granted.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit (g)(17)

Form of

**APPENDIX A**

TO

CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

AND

EACH OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANIES

DATED AS OF April 23, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yhine HINES, a/k/a Itty, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7494.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Yhine Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Robert E. Trono, Assis*255tant United States Attorneys, David No-vak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yhine Hines appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Hines,*No. 3:01-cr-00304-JRS-8 (E.D.Va. Oct. 20, 2011). 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 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

April 26, 2017

 

Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

German Vidal, the Chief Executive Officer and Pedro Insussarry, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of Telecom Argentina S.A. (“Telecom”) each certifies that, to the best of their knowledge:

 

1.          this Annual Report on Form 20-F (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Telecom.

 

 
|   | By:    | /S/ GERMÁN VIDAL |
|--------|--------|-----------------------|
|   |   | Name:                 | Germán Vidal |
|   |   | Title:                | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |                  |   |
|   |   |                  |   |
|   | By:    | /S/ PEDRO INSUSSARRY  |
|   |   | Name:                 | Pedro Insussarry |
|   |   | Title:                | Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Federal Register: November 19, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 64247-64248]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19no98-46]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 4, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.


[[Page 64248]]


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-31046 Filed 11-17-98; 2:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte James J. Walter.

November 23, 1936.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
#### Samvel HOVANISYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-71811.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2010.*

Filed April 26, 2010.

Artem M. Sarian, Esq., Attorney at Law, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Samvel Hovanisyan (“Samvel”), a native of the former USSR and a citizen of Azer*662baijan, and his son Karen Hovanisyan (“Karen”), a native of the former USSR and a citizen of Armenia or Azerbaijan, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering them removed from the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny Samvel’s and Karen’s petition for review. The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

“[W]hen the BIA incorporates the IJ’s decision as its own, we treat the IJ’s reasons as the BIA’s.” *He v. Ashcroft,*328 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2003).

We review findings of fact for substantial evidence.1*Zhao v. Mukasey,*540 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.2008). We will uphold the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” *Abebe v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).

II

The BIA’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. There are pervasive inconsistencies between the applications and the testimony at the hearing before the IJ. *See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS,*955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.1992) (noting that significant inconsistencies between the asylum application and testimony support an adverse credibility finding). Moreover, Samvel and Karen have failed to establish their identities and failed to present evidence that would compel us to conclude that “corroborating evidence is unavailable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). On the contrary, the record indicates that Samvel and Karen were given ample time to obtain corroborating evidence from their on-going relations in Armenia and Moscow.

Samvel and Karen simply have not presented sufficient evidence to “compel[ ]” a finding contrary to that of the IJ. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) defines the substantial evidence standard by stating that "the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
```

[Federal Register: September 27, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 58052]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27se00-48]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, October 20, 2000.

Place: 1155 21st, NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for more Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-24873 Filed 9-22-00; 4:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1256 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1256

    Congratulating Phil Mickelson on winning the 2010 Masters golf 
                              tournament.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2010

  Mr. Broun of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Congratulating Phil Mickelson on winning the 2010 Masters golf 
                              tournament.

Whereas, on April 11, 2010, Phil Mickelson won the Masters golf tournament for 
        the third time at the Augusta National Golf Course in Augusta, Georgia;
Whereas the Augusta National Golf Course was established in 1933;
Whereas the Masters was started by Clifford Roberts and Robert Tyre ``Bobby'' 
        Jones, Jr., who designed the Augusta National Golf Course with course 
        architect Alister MacKenzie;
Whereas the Augusta National Golf Course has hosted the Masters since 1934;
Whereas the Masters is one of the 4 major championships in professional golf;
Whereas past Masters champions include some of the greatest players in golf 
        history, such as Walter Hagen, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, 
        Byron Nelson, Jack Nicklaus, Gene Sarazen, Sam Snead, Tom Watson, and 
        Tiger Woods;
Whereas Phil Mickelson shot a final round 67 for a 72-hole total of 16 under 
        par, 3 strokes better than any other competitor;
Whereas Phil Mickelson brings great pride and honor to his family and friends 
        through the tremendous skill, patience, and determination he displayed 
        in victory;
Whereas Phil Mickelson has won 4 major championships, including the Masters 3 
        times, and a total of 38 events on the PGA Tour; and
Whereas the Phil and Amy Mickelson Foundation, through involvement with Start 
        Smart, the Mickelson ExxonMobil Teachers Academy, and other causes, have 
        supported a variety of youth and family initiatives: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Phil 
Mickelson on the outstanding accomplishment of winning the 2010 Masters 
golf tournament.
                                 <all>
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

#### Basham v. Sager

April 9, 1992

Case No. CL91-824

By Judge Herbert C. Gill, Jr.

The parties were before the Court on April 8, 1992, for argument on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Upon review of the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be overruled as to the issue of immunity from service of process under § 19.2-113.

However, the Court notes that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed with the Court addresses a second issue, that defendant has not been served personally or properly with a Notice of Motion for Judgment. While counsel did not address this issue in open court, the Court is of the opinion that the Proof of Service filed with the Court does not comply with Rules 3:3 and 3:4 since the Proof of Service indicates service of only “a copy of this Motion for Judgment” on the defendant.

Accordingly, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is overruled as to the issue of immunity from service of process and sustained as to the issue of improper service of the Notice of Motion for Judgment. The Court grants leave, however, to plaintiff to amend the Proof of Service.
#### Tyrone HURT, Appellant v. D.C. BOARD OF PAROLE and Margaret Quick, Appellees.

No. 06-7165.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 22, 2006.

Tyrone Hurt, Washington, DC, pro se.

Edward Eugene Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, for the District of Columbia, Office of the *9Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and RANDOLPH and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 28, 2006 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this action pursuant to § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. *See*§ 1915(e)(2)(B). A municipality can only be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when its policy or custom inflicts the injury. *See Monell v. Department of Social Services,*436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Appellant did not claim that his alleged injuries were the result of the former D.C. Parole Board’s policy or custom. Furthermore, to the extent appellant is suing the former Chairperson of the D.C. Board of Parole in her individual capacity, the district court correctly held that the complaint does not allege that the former Chairperson, “acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.” *Kentucky v. Graham,*473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). *See Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t,*108 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C.Cir.1997) (complaint must allege personal involvement by government official in events giving rise to constitutional claim).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Presidential Documents

30629

Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 110

Thursday, June 7, 2001

Title 3—

The President

Memorandum of May 30, 2001

Delegation of Responsibilities Related to the Latin American

Development Act of 1960

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United

States of America, including section 301 of title 3 of the United States

Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the functions conferred

upon the President by the Latin American Development Act of 1960, 22

U.S.C. 1942 et seq.

The functions delegated by this memorandum may be redelegated as appropriate.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal

Register.

[FR Doc. 01–14518

Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, May 30, 2001.

W

Billing code 4710–10–M