alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irene Mbatkam TCHOUA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-2408.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 25, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2006.

*321Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Irene Mbatkam Tchoua, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Tchoua challenges the determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Tchoua fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Tchoua’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for *322withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Tchoua fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.

We also find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Tchoua failed to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). We find that Tchoua failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.* 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.*

*

 Tchoua also argues that the Board erred in failing to remand the record to the immigration judge in light of the poor translation by the court interpreter and missing words in the transcript. Tchoua, however, never objected to the transcript or the translation on appeal to the Board, nor did he ask for a remand on this ground. He has therefore waived his right to raise this argument before this court. *See Farrokhi v. INS,*900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir.1990).
#### THE MURMUGAO. DE SIMONE v. TRANSPORTES MARITIMOS DO ESTADO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 25, 1922.)

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Separate libels in admiralty by Thomas De Simone against the steamshipMurmugao, of which the Transportes Marítimos do Estado was claimant, and against the Transportes Marítimos do Estado. Decrees for libelant, and. claimant appeals.

Appeals dismissed.

Certiorari granted 258 U. S.-, 42 Sup. Ct. 272, 66 L. Ed.-

F. Dudley Kohler, of New York City, for appellant.

Celler & Kraushaar, of New York City, for appellee.

Before ROGERS and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

MAYER, Circuit Judge.

Motions to dismiss the appeals are granted, for-the reasons stated in the Sao Vicente and other cases against the’ same appellant filed herewith. 281 Fed. 111.
| 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      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements      included in the Report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Len E.      Williams                              | /s/ Eric S. Nadeau                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Len E.      Williams                             | Eric S.      Nadeau                                       |
| President      and  Chief Executive Officer | Executive      Vice President and Chief      Financial Officer |
|                                                  |                                                           |
| Dated: February 8,      2010                     |                                                           |

|  36 |
|----------|
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ImmunoBiotics., Inc. (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Smith,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; and





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




/s/ Daniel
      SmithDaniel
      Smith
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer)




August
14, 2009
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MELISSA LUSBY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-388

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada, 

Judge.

Melissa Lusby, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1276 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1276

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 21, 2010.
Whereas April 21, 2010, marks the first anniversary of the signing of the Edward 
        M. Kennedy Serve America Act;
Whereas the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act reauthorized the Corporation for 
        National and Community Service and its programs through 2014, expanding 
        opportunities for millions of people in the United States to serve the 
        Nation;
Whereas the country is experiencing a wave of new innovation and collaboration 
        to increase volunteerism; as social entrepreneurs try new approaches, 
        technology increases access and expands service, and corporate 
        volunteers provide pro bono skills to nonprofit organizations;
Whereas the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act increases volunteer 
        opportunities for people in the United States of all ages, with a focus 
        on disadvantaged youth, seniors, and veterans;
Whereas the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act promotes social innovation by 
        supporting and expanding proven programs and builds capacity of 
        individuals, nonprofits, and communities to volunteer; and
Whereas the legislation leverages service to assist in meeting challenges in the 
        areas of education, health, clean energy, veterans, and economic 
        opportunity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes that service is of significant value to the United 
        States; and
            (2) recognizes the first anniversary of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve 
        America Act, and encourages every citizen of the United States to 
        continue to answer the call to serve.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
~ASA1 RECEIVED 

C.F.T.C. 

rJ7-tf 

(j) 

American Soybean 

Association ® 

7 DEC 2 6 PM 5: I 5 

CO OS SECT!O 

1212': 'N odr:re t E<eCIIIrve Drive. Suite 100. St. loui. MO 63141 Phone. (3·1-\) 576-1770, Fax (314) ,'";7G-:,!8Fi 

c-_ 

December 21, 2007 

Mr. David Stawick 

Secretary 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

COMMENT 

RE: Revision ofFederal Speculative Position Limits 

Dear Mr. Stawick: 

-,. 

c 

-. , 

•· 

- j 

On behalf of the American Soybean Association (ASA), I appreciate the opportunity to 

comment on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) proposed increases 

to speculative position limits. ASA is the policy advocate and collective voice of its 

24,000 producer-members on domestic and international issues of importance to all U.S. 

soybean farmers. 

ASA supports the CFTC's efforts to improve efficiency in the market. We believe that 

efficient, trustworthy, and competitive markets serve the interests of all market 

participants, including farmers. 

ASA's farmer members have recently been expressing concern about what many 

perceive as a lack of convergence and lack of performance of certain exchange-traded 

contracts. We recognize that there may be a number of factors that may be influencing 

any lack of convergence, including transportation costs and the increased role of 

investors. 

In considering the proposal to increase speculative limits, ASA's question to the CFTC is 

whether analysis has been completed on the impact of changes to speculative limits on 

convergence between futures and cash markets? Does the CFTC believe the changes in 

spec limits would be neutral, or could the changes exacerbate lack of convergence? If the 

changes could exacerbate lack of convergence, ASA would be opposed to increasing the 

limits. 

:;:-:-> 

·- ·~ .'1 1'1 

:-i-;: 

;.;rn 
We are aware that members of the National Grain and Feed Association are meeting to 

review this issue in a few weeks. We share their views that any changes in spec limits 

need to be reviewed carefully in light of significant changes that are occurring in the 

markets. We request that the CFTC analyze whether increasing speculative position 

limits would negatively affect convergence of cash and futures markets, and not proceed 

with the increase if it is determined that such increases would have negative effects. 

Sincerely, 

rH~ John Hoffman 

President
No. 225.

#### Bolin *v.*Marshall, Deputy Commissioner, et al.

October 14, 1935.

*Mary Bolin, pro se.*

*Mr. John F. Reilly*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis*denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from American
Financial Group, Inc. 10-K for December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                        $448,296
<SECURITIES>                                10,513,038<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  609,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,051,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        517,919
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,072
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,493,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,051,118
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,115,397
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               396,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                353,244
<INCOME-TAX>                                    91,277
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            261,967
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (28,667)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  $233,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.84
<FN>
<F1>Includes an investment in investees of $200 million.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 11a0463n.06

No. 08-3770

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NASER DAR EGHRAYYEB,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Naser Dar Eghrayyeb, filed this appeal from the

district court’s order denying his pro se habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

in which the petitioner claimed that his rights were violated when he was classified as an

inmate presenting special needs for management and that he is entitled to relief under the

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), despite the fact that BOP records are exempt from the Act. 

The district court found that there was no constitutional violation alleged or established and

dismissed the petition.

Petitioner Eghrayyeb filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2008, and a brief in this

court on April 20, 2009. However, he was released from federal prison on December 18,

2009. Given the nature of his claims and the fact that he is no longer incarcerated, we

would be unable to supply a remedy, even if we found that the claims had merit. It thus
No. 08-3770

Eghrayyeb v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

appears that the appeal is moot and, therefore, that we lack jurisdiction to review it. See

Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam). Eghrayyeb’s asserted

“collateral consequence,” that the BOP’s classification of Eghrayyeb as a terrorist would

subject him to torture and disparaging treatment, does not permit review because it is

based not on proof of a “concrete and continuing injury,” Spencer v Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,

7 (1998), but on mere speculation.

For these reasons, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions to

vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition.

- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 28, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                         6,795
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              13,368
<PP&E>                                           732
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                20,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,143
<BONDS>                                           87
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          10
<OTHER-SE>                                    16,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  20,978
<SALES>                                        2,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,633
<CGS>                                          1,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (366)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,151)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,151)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.16)
        


</TABLE>
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: KROLL, DALON & CO., INC. AND STANLEY KROLL 

DOCKET NUMBER: 173 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 173 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Kroll, Dalon & Co., Inc. 

and Stanley Kroll 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges that on August 31, 1969, the respondent corporation, 

while registered as a futures commission merchant under the Act, failed to meet 

minimum financial requirements prescribed for futures commission merchants, by 

approximately $ 265,000. It also charges that the corporation was 

undersegregated on 21 business days during the period July 14 through August 26, 

1969, in amounts ranging up to approximately $ 20,000. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, June 30, 1970, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

y0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140616 & (16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140616 COA: 295586 Oakland CC: 2008-223910-FH YAKOV VYACHESLAV RAKHAMIMOV, 2008-224095-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this C ourt. The motion for stay is DENIED.
SEC Exhibit






Exhibit 10.3


AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment to the Executive Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") effective as of January 1, 2016, is hereby made by and between Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Beth W. Cooper (the "Executive").




Background Information


     The parties to this Amendment (the "Parties") entered into the Agreement dated as of January 9, 2013, regarding the Executive's employment relationship with the Company.  The Parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for the extension of the Current Term, as defined therein, for a period of two years, subject to further extension each year thereafter, as provided in the Agreement.  




Agreement


In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:


1.    The first sentence of Section 2.b of the Agreement shall be revised to read as follows:  “Subject to Paragraph 2(c), the Current Term of this Agreement shall extend through December 31, 2017, subject to further extension as provided below.”


2.    All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.




	
				
	 
	 
	CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 
	 

	[CORPORATE SEAL]
	 
	By:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	ATTEST:
	 
	Title:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Date:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EXECUTIVE:

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Date: