alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re David WILLIS, Petitioner.

No. 12-1072.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 15, 2012.

Decided: March 20, 2012.

David Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied the motion on January 23, 2012, 2012 WL 181420. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Willis’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: WALTER ENGLISH 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 102 

DATE: MARCH 14, 1967 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Walter English 

Stipulation of Compliance Under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 102 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Walter English has 

violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1) and 

the order of the Commodity Exchange Commission establishing limits on position 

and daily trading in wheat for future delivery (17 CFR 150.1). 

No complaint with respect to such violation has been issued, and the said 

Walter English is desirous of disposing of the matter by entering into a 

stipulation of compliance, as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the Rules of 

Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Part 0). Therefore, the said 

Walter English stipulates the following facts are true: 

(1) Walter English, an individual whose address is Station E, Box 6927, 

Columbus, Ohio, is now and was at all times mentioned herein a member of the 

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago. 

(2) The transactions herein described were entered into by Walter English on 

the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, a duly designated contract market 

under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

(3) On February 21, 1967, Walter English made the following speculative 

purchases of wheat futures: 

Future Bushels 

May 1967 250,000

July 1967 1,000,000

September 1967 1,065,000

December 1967 685,000

 Total 3,000,000

The Commodity Exchange Authority has advised Walter English that the total of 

his purchases of wheat futures on February 21, 1967, was in excess of the 

maximum amount of such purchases permitted by the order of the Commodity 

Exchange Commission establishing limits on position and daily trading in wheat 

for future delivery, and therefore such trading was in violation of such order 

and section 4a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6a, 17 CFR 150.1). 

Previous transactions by Walter English in excess of such limits were called to 

his attention by the Act Administrator in a letter dated December 8, 1965. 

Walter English agrees to desist from such acts in the future. He further 

understands and agrees that this stipulation is admissible as evidence of such 

acts in any future proceeding based upon acts or practices in addition to those 

referred to herein which may be brought by the Secretary of Agriculture against 

him under the provisions of the said act. He also understands that it is the 

practice of the Commodity Exchange Authority to issue press releases on 

stipulations of compliance and to make them a matter of public record. 
Page 2 

Done at [ILLEGIBLE TEXT], this [ILLEGIBLE TEXT] day of [ILLEGIBLE TEXT] March 

1967 

March 14 1967 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Walter English 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of iTrackr
Systems, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2010, I, John Rizzo,
Chief Financial Officer of iTrackr Systems, 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
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2010,
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ending September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of iTrackr Systems,
Inc.




Dated:
October 18, 2010




/s/ John RizzoJohn Rizzo, Chief Financial Officer ofITrackr
      Systems, Inc.
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 p.m. and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 525, Chicago, Illinois 60603. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss civil rights issues and plan future activities.

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Constance M. Davis, Director of the Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, June 11, 2001. 

Edward A. Hailes, Jr., 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 01-15368 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: IRWIN GOLDMAN 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 86 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1965 

DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation of Compliance 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Irwin Goldman 

Stipulation of Compliance Under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 86 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Irwin Goldman has 

violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1) and 

the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated thereunder (17 CFR, 

Chapter 1). No complaint with respect to such violations has been issued and 

the said Irwin Goldman is desirous of disposing of the matter by entering into a 

stipulation of compliance as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the Rules of 

Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Part 0). Therefore, the said 

Irwin Goldman stipulates the following facts are true: 

(1) Irwin Goldman an individual whose address is 141 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, is now and was on August 13, 1965, a registered floor 

broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a member of the Board of Trade of 

the City of Chicago, a duly designated contract market under the Commodity 

Exchange Act. 

(2) On August 13, 1965, Irwin Goldman executed 124 transactions in regulated 

commodity futures on the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago but failed to 

prepare a trading card or other 

record clearly identifying the opposite floor broker or other person with whom 

each of such transactions was executed. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has advised Irwin Goldman that his failure to 

keep full and complete records of futures transactions, as described above, was 

in violation of section 4g of the Commodity Exchange Act and section 1.35 of the 

regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

The said Irwin Goldman agrees to desist from such acts and practices in the 

future. He further understands and agrees that this stipulation shall be 

admissible as evidence of such acts and practices in any future proceeding based 

upon acts or practices in addition to those referred to herein which may be 

brought against him by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the 

said act. He also understands that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange 

Authority to make stipulations of compliance a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois, this 

30 day of September 1965 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 
Page 2 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: March 2, 2009 
Page 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        121


        <NAME>      Fidelity Japan Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

268,064


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

256,361


<RECEIVABLES>

2,958


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

259,319


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

1,891


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

1,873


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

3,764


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

320,732


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

23,018


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

24,866


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

0


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

1,145


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

(52,328)


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

(11,704)


<NET-ASSETS>

255,555


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

1,912


<INTEREST-INCOME>

928


<OTHER-INCOME>

(285)


<EXPENSES-NET>

4,136


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

(1,581)


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

(19,143)


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

9,840


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

(10,884)


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

235


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

19,573


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

21,440


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

19


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

(34,940)


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

(345)


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

(32,168)


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

2,733


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

4,190


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

295,113


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

11.680


<PER-SHARE-NII>

(.060)


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

(.550)


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .010


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

0


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

11.100


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

142


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
|GRAPHIC |                               |  | EXHIBIT 99.4            
|------- | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|        | KPMG LLPChartered Accountants |  |                         
|        | Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street |  | Telephone (604) 691-3000
|        | Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3          |  | Telefax (604) 691-3031  
|        | Canada                        |  | www.kpmg.ca             

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The
Board of Directors
Ballard Power Systems Inc.

We
consent to the use of our report dated February 4, 2003 included in this annual report on Form 40-F.

We
also consent to the use of our report dated February 4, 2003 related to "Comments by Auditor for U.S. Readers on Canada  U.S. Reporting
Difference" included on Form 40-F.

We
also consent to the incorporation by reference of such report in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-104193, 333-102364, 333-99077,
333-98009, 333-97561, 333-97559, 333-89414, 333-89088, 333-89064) on Form S-8 of Ballard Power
Systems Inc.

GRAPHIC

Chartered
Accountants

Vancouver,
Canada
February 4, 2003

---

QuickLinks
#### THE HURSTDALE.

(District Court, S. D. New York.

May 10, 1909.)

Admiralty (§ 124*) — Costs.

Disbursemeirls made in giving stipulations for value, even if not to surety companies, are taxable if reasonable.

[Ed. *Note.*— For other cases, see Admiralty, Dec. Dig. § 124.*]

(Syllabus by the Judge.)

See, also, 169 Fed. 913.

Wing, Putnam *&*Burlinghain, for libellants.

Convers & Kirlin, for claimant and respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r indexes

ADAMS, District Judge.

On the taxation of costs in this action, a question is presented whether the successful party is entitled to recover the disbursements necessarily made in giving a stipulation for value. The claimant in giving such a stipulation incurred an expense of $50.19, paid to bankers in England, and it was objected to, and the objection sustained by the clerk, probably because there is no direct authority for the taxation. It has, however, become the settled practice to allow disbursements made to surety companies for the same purpose. I am unable to see any distinction in this matter in principle. The fee seems to have been reasonable and if it is proper to allow such disbursements to surety companies, it should also be allowed in a case of this kind. The exception is therefore sustained.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 482

EX PA R TE TE D PA TR I C K C A M M A C K , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 1 5 , 0 1 3 I N T HE 1 1 5 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM UPS HU R CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u a n t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) . Applicant wa s convicted of possession of a controlled substanc e and sente nced to thirty y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant conte nds that he wa s denied the r ight to appe al his conviction. Both trial c ounsel and a

ppellate counsel have submitt ed af fidavits responding to Applicant’s alleg ation. Trial counse l states that he inadve rtently failed to timely file a motion for ne w trial and
err oneously informed appellate counsel that such a motion wa s filed. Appellate c ounsel states that2

he re lied on trial counsel’ s asser tion that a mot ion for new t rial had been filed and therefor e missed the de a dli ne fo r tim e ly fi lin g a no tic e of a pp e a l. We f

ind , th a t A pp lic a nt i s e nti tle d to the op po rt un ity to fi l e an o u t-of-time a

ppeal of the judg ment of convic tion in C ause N o. 15,013 from the 115 th J udicial District Court of Upshur County . Applicant is order ed re turned to tha t time at which he may g ive a written notice of appea l so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, o b t ai n a m eaningf ul appea l. All tim e limits shall be calculate d as if the se ntence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should A pplicant desire to pr osecute an appea l, he must take aff

irmative steps to file a written notice of appea l in the trial court within 30 day s after the
mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: J anuar

y 26, 2011 Do No t Pu

bli sh
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15249]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 9, 2001.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Houmam H. Araj, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6150, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1340.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 17, 2001.
    Time: 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6144, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-6470, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cbafb8a4a6a6aeb9b88ba6aaa2a7e5a5a2a3e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8aeef9e5e7e7eff8f9cae7ebe3e6a4e4e3e2a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: June 11, 2001.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15249 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 772.

#### Noland, Trustee, *v.*Westover, Collector, United States Treasury Department, et al.

C. A. 9th *939Cir.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Perlman*for respondents.

Certiorari denied.
#### FUK TEK TEH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73302.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 11, 2010.

Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

James A. Hurley, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, 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. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Fuk Tek Teh, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Husyev v. Mukasey, 528*F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Teh contends he qualifies for the extraordinary circumstances exception to the one year asylum deadline and he applied within a reasonable period of the alleged extraordinary circumstances. Teh also contends the IJ applied the wrong legal standard when analyzing his CAT claim. We lack jurisdiction to review these con*645tentions because Teh failed to exhaust them before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Teh did not suffer past persecution because the discrimination at school and the robbery, considered individually or cumulatively, did not constitute persecution. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2009). Even as a member of a disfavored group, Teh failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2004); *see also Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1065 (“An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail”). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese and Christians in Indonesia. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1067-68. Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Teh failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. *See id.*at 1067-68. Accordingly, Teh’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

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