alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6469

DENNIS JAMES BROWN, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00065-MHL)

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis James Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM:

Dennis James Brown seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. ∗ The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brown's motion to review records, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

∗ The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

23 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15454]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3346]


State of Kentucky

    Laurel County and the contiguous counties of Clay, Jackson, Knox, 
McCreary, Pulaski, Rockcastle and Whitley constitute a disaster area 
due to damages caused by severe storms and tornadoes that occurred on 
June 2, 2001. Applications for loans for physical damage may be filed 
until the close of business on August 10, 2001 and for economic injury 
until the close of business on March 11, 2002 at the address listed 
below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, 
Atlanta, GA 30308.
    The interest rates are:

For Physical Damage

Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere: 6.625%
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 3.312%
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere: 8.000%
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available 
Elsewhere: 4.000%
Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available 
Elsewhere: 7.125%

For Economic Injury

Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available 
Elsewhere: 4.000%

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 334611 
and for economic injury the number assigned is 9L8500.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 11, 2001.
John Whitmore,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-15454 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
Jordan RAINBOW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9489.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    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 
meeting.
    The meeting 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel NIH ES-00-79.
    Date: June 22, 2001.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: NIEH-East Campus, Building 4401, Conference Room 122, 79 
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Zoe E. Huang, MD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Research and Training, Nat. Institutes of Environmental Health 
Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD/EC-30, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709, 919/541-4964.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.113, 
Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied 
Toxicological Research and Testing; 93.115, Biometry and Risk 
Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS 
Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS 
Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic Research and Education; 
93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental 
Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: June 11, 2001.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15245 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Alejandro NUNEZ-MIROLA, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 16-6287.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jaquel CREWS, aka Quelly, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6183.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
#### Nelida Bahena URBINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-71937.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 11, 2010.

Nelida Bahena Urbina, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.

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, Emily A. Radford, Esq., David Schor, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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 **

Nelida Bahena Urbina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal, and denying her motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, *Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008), and de novo questions of law, *Hernandez v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Bahena Urbina failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir.2003). Bahena Urbina’s contention that the agency failed to properly weigh her evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

Our review of the BIA’s decision to deny Bahena Urbina’s motion to remand for fraud by an immigration consultant is foreclosed by *Hernandez v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that “reliance upon the advice of a non-attorney cannot form the basis of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding”).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bahena Urbina’s motion to remand because she failed to set forth any new facts or present any new evidence to warrant a remand. *See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.2008) (“The formal requirements of a mo*648tion to remand and a motion to reopen are the same.”); *see also*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (proidding that a motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material”).

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.
George M. KNIEST, et al., petitioners, v. MISSOURI.

No. 16-6060.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: MYLES J. KERRIGAN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 209 

DATE: MAY 2, 1974 

DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Myles J. Kerrigan, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 209 

Notice of Effective Date of Decision 

The attached Decision which was issued by Administrative Law Judge John A. 

Campbell on March 22, 1974, in this proceeding, has not been appealed to the 

Secretary within the allotted time. 

In accordance with the applicable rules of practice the Decision became final 

on May 1, 1974, and the cease and desist provisions thereof became effective on 

May 1, 1974. The suspension provision and the prohibition of trading and denial 

of trading privileges will become effective on May 31, 1974. 

Dated: May 2, 1974 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Eugene R. Meyer 

Hearing Clerk 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board; Meeting Date Change

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting date change.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Systems 
Technology for the Future U.S. Strategic Posture closed meeting 
scheduled for June 13-14, 2001, published at 65 FR 70556, November 24, 
2000, has been changed to June 25-26, 2001. The meeting will be held at 
Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, 
VA.

    Dated: June 8, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-15212 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
No. 464.

#### Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans et al. *v.*North American Fruit *&*Steamship Corp. et al.

October 28, 1935.

*Mr. James Wilkinson*for petitioners.

No appearance for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in each of the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-71557 and 333-87841) of Medjet Inc. (a
Development Stage Company) of our report dated January 29, 2002 relating to the
financial statements of Medjet Inc., which report appears in this Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB of Medjet Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.




                                       ROSENBERG RICH BAKER BERMAN & COMPANY

                                       /s/Rosenberg Rich Baker Berman & Company

Bridgewater, New Jersey
March 15, 2002



                                       1
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in: (1) Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-68019) of Marvel Entertainment, Inc. (formerly Marvel Enterprises, Inc.); (2) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-101426) of Marvel Entertainment, Inc.; (3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-76655) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of Marvel Entertainment, Inc.; (4) Registration Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-101422) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of Marvel Entertainment, Inc.; and (5) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-127196) pertaining to the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of Marvel Entertainment, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Marvel Entertainment, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2004 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

New York, New York

March 1, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Hiers, Appellant.

[881 NYS2d 193]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered May 17, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions with respect to the comments made by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant either failed to object to them or, after an objection was sustained, failed to either request further curative instructions or timely move for a mistrial based on those comments, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641, 642 [1986]; *People v Torres,*46 AD3d 925 [2007]; *People v Arnold,*170 AD2d 610 [1991]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 85 [1982]).

The defendant’s contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief are without merit. Spolzino, J.E, Dillon, Florio and Belen, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 1461 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 22, 2010. 

Whereas Olympic Day, June 23, 2010, celebrates the Olympic ideal of developing peace through sport; 

Whereas June 23 marks the anniversary of the founding of 

the modern Olympic movement, the date on which the 

Congress of Paris approved the proposal of Pierre de 

Coubertin to found the modern Olympics; 

Whereas for more than 100 years, the Olympic movement has 

built a more peaceful and better world by educating 

young people through amateur athletics, by bringing together athletes from many countries in friendly competition, and by forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity, and fair play; 

Whereas the United States advocates the ideals of the Olympic movement; 

Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the development of 

Olympic and Paralympic sport in the United States; 

Whereas Team USA won an historic 37 medals at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games; 

Whereas Team USA won 13 medals at the Vancouver 2010 

Paralympic Winter Games; 
2 

•HRES 1461 EH 

Whereas the USOC Paralympic Military Program provides 

post-rehabilitation support and mentoring to members of 

the United States Armed Forces who’ve sustained physical injuries such as traumatic brain injury, spinal cord 

injury, amputation, visual impairment or blindness, and 

stroke; 

Whereas Olympic Day encourages the participation of youth 

of the United States in Olympic and Paralympic sport; 

Whereas World Fit, a program established by Olympians and 

Paralympians to promote physical fitness and a healthy 

lifestyle to middle school children and connect them with 

Olympic and Paralympic athletes and the Olympic Movement, helped 7,239 students from 17 schools in 6 States 

walk a total of 769,148 miles in 6 weeks during the 2010 

program; 

Whereas Olympic Day will encourage the teaching of Olympic 

history, health, arts, and culture among the youth of the 

United States; and 

Whereas enthusiasm for Olympic and Paralympic sport is at 

an all-time high: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports Olympic Day and the goals that Olympic Day pursues; 

(2) congratulates Team USA on their Vancouver 

2010 accomplishments; and 
3 

•HRES 1461 EH 

(3) supports the goals of World Fit and congratulates its participants on the 2010 results. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe Jesus BARRERA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-1001.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted March 7, 2012.*

Decided March 7, 2012.

Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

ORDER

Felipe Jesus Barrera-Chavez, a Mexican citizen, pleaded guilty to reentering the United States unlawfully after having been deported, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). *567The district court sentenced him to 62 months’ imprisonment, the middle of his guidelines range. Barrera-Chavez filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer believes the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Barrera-Chavez has not responded to counsel’s motion. *See*Cir. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issues counsel identified in his facially adequate brief. *See United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel advises that Barrera-Chavez does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, and thus the lawyer appropriately omits discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the voluntariness of the guilty plea. See *United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel considers whether Barrera-Chavez might challenge his sentence but properly concludes that any such challenge would be frivolous. The court adopted the probation officer’s properly calculated guidelines range of 57 to 71 months, and counsel has not identified any reason to disturb the presumption of reasonableness applicable to Barrera-Chavez’s within-guidelines sentence. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 350-51, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); *United States v. Moreno-Padilla,*602 F.3d 802, 810 (7th Cir.2010). The district court adequately discussed the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), noting that Barrera-Chavez had already been removed three times and would be “sorely tempted to recidivate,” and that this time he was caught after being pulled over for driving under the influence (he was later convicted). The court reasonably found that these considerations outweighed Barrera-Chavez’s argument in mitigation that he would have been given an opportunity to receive a lighter sentence in a jurisdiction with a “fast-track” program, *see United States v. Lua-Guizar,*656 F.3d 563, 568-69 (7th Cir.2011); *United States v. GuajardoMartinez,*635 F.3d 1056, 1063 (7th Cir.2011). The court also reasonably declined to give a lower sentence based on the Sentencing Commission’s supposed failure to use empirical data in creating a 16-level enhancement for defendants who were previously removed for a drug-trafficking offense, *see*U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii); *United States v. Aguilar-Huerta,*576 F.3d 365, 367-68 (7th Cir.2009).

We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
#### Nathaniel JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael MCCALL, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6571.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 26, 2010.

Nathaniel Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85,120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*