alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jason KOKINDA, petitioner, v. Robert GILMORE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Greene, et al.

No. 17-8271.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Yuri J. STOYANOV, petitioner, v. Sean J. STACKLEY, Acting Secretary of the Navy, et al.

No. 17-174.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/29/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      504,152
COMMITMENTS
  51,112   20,205   80,167  354,621  385,145  485,900  485,517   18,252   18,635

CHANGES FROM 12/22/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,406)
   5,126   -3,008    1,838   -2,018    2,307    4,946    1,137   -2,540    1,269

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    10.1      4.0     15.9     70.3     76.4     96.4     96.3      3.6      3.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      111)
      29       13       35       58       64       98      103
```

----

Updated January 7, 2010
Exhibit 32.2

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 Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth D. Walter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ KENNETH D. WALTERKenneth D. WalterChief Financial Officer


August 9, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2176

JULIO CESAR ARCE GUILLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 8, 2018 Decided: March 14, 2018

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adina Appelbaum, CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS (CAIR) COALITION, 

Washington, D.C.; Gabriel K. Gillett, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew E. Price, JENNER & 

BLOCK LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Julio Cesar Arce Guillen, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of 

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.1

 We 

have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Guillen’s merits hearing 

before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record 

evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision

that Guillen failed to show a nexus between past persecution or fear of future persecution 

and a protected ground. Guillen also fails to show that he was denied due process. See 

Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating elements of a due process 

claim in a removal case). Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

we deny the petition for review.

2

 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 1 Guillen does not challenge the finding that his asylum application was untimely or 

that he did not meet his burden of proof for protection under the Convention Against 

Torture. Accordingly, these issues are not reviewable. Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 

F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (deeming issues not raised in opening brief waived).

2 Because the Board did not reach Guillen’s claim that the IJ erred in finding that he 

was not a member of a particular social group, we need not address Guillen’s arguments 

on this issue.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,785
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                       157
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,625
<PP&E>                                           6,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,874
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                           151
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,158)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,518
<SALES>                                         22,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,563
<CGS>                                           13,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,522
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,883)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,883)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,883)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)


</TABLE>
David SHU, petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

No. 17-9.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Kevin HAWKINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6192.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00650-CR

Robert Trevino Botello, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-07-202153, HONORABLE CHARLES F. BAIRD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted appellant Robert Trevino Botello of two counts of

aggravated sexual assault; found two enhancement allegations to be true, including a prior conviction

for burglary with the intent to commit sexual assault; and sentenced him to life imprisonment. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(c)(2), 22.021 (West Supp. 2008). Appellant’s appointed attorney

has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d

684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to
 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.

We have considered the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We have reviewed the evidence presented to the jury and the

procedures that were observed and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: August 29, 2008

Do Not Publish
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/08/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       47,153
COMMITMENTS
   4,637    8,377    3,212   28,732   28,266   36,581   39,855   10,572    7,298

CHANGES FROM 09/01/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      4,898)
    -471      650    1,261    2,207    1,632    2,997    3,543    1,901    1,355

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.8     17.8      6.8     60.9     59.9     77.6     84.5     22.4     15.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       27)
       8        8        6       10        8       22       18
```

----

Updated September 11, 2008
# L_2013231EN.01002201.xml

| 29.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 231/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 231/22

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 48/2013

of 15 March 2013

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1146/2012 of 3 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1146/2012 of 3 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 66zab (Commission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32012 R 1146: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1146/2012 of 3 December 2012 (OJ L 333, 5.12.2012, p. 7).’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32012 R 1146: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1146/2012 of 3 December 2012 (OJ L 333, 5.12.2012, p. 7).’.

Article 2

The texts of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1146/2012 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 16 March 2013, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 15 March 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 333, 5.12.2012, p. 7.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Frank James ABSTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5486.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Ruben Febronio MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. Clark DUCART, Warden.

No. 17-6160.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Patrick Farrell,certify that:

1.                           Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of iParty Corp.;

2.                           Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                           Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                           Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)             [Not applicable];

(c)              Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)             Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                           Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: March 19, 2007 | /s/ PATRICK FARRELL                     |   |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | Patrick Farrell                         |   |
| * *             | *President and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4119 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the interest-free 

grace period certain loans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2019 

Mr. LAWSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. TLAIB, and Mr. VARGAS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend 

the interest-free grace period certain loans, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Defer5 ment Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTEREST-FREE GRACE PERIOD. 

7 (a) REPAYMENT PERIOD.— 

8 (1) EXTENSION OF GRACE PERIOD.—Section 

9 428(b)(7)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4119 IH

1 (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(7)(A)) is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘6 months’’ and inserting ‘‘1 year’’. 

3 (2) PERKINS.—Section 464(c)(1)(A) of the 

4 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

5 1087dd(c)(1)(A)) is amended— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘nine months’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘1 year’’; and 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘9 months’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘1 year’’. 

10 (b) INTEREST RATES.—Section 455(b) of the Higher 

11 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)) is amended 

12 by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(11) IN SCHOOL AND GRACE PERIOD RULES.— 

14 Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this 

15 subsection, with respect to any Federal Direct Staf16 ford Loan or Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford 

17 Loan made under this part for which the first dis18 bursement is made on or after July 1, 2020, the ap19 plicable rate of interest for interest which accrues— 

20 ‘‘(A) prior to the beginning of the repay21 ment period of the loan; or 

22 ‘‘(B) during the period in which principal 

23 need not be paid (whether or not such principal 

24 is in fact paid) by reason of a provision deVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:37 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4119.IH H4119

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4119 IH

1 scribed in section 428(b)(1)(M) or 

2 427(a)(2)(C), 

3 shall be equal to zero percent.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4284 

To permanently extend the exemption for the aging process of distilled spirits 

from the production period for purposes of capitalization of interest costs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 

Mr. YARMUTH (for himself, Mr. BARR, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. COMER, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, and Mr. MASSIE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To permanently extend the exemption for the aging process 

of distilled spirits from the production period for purposes of capitalization of interest costs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advancing Growth in 

5 the Economy through Distilled Spirits Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘AGED Spirits Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4284 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRODUCTION PERIOD OF DISTILLED SPIRITS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

3 263A(f)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

4 amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(B) TERMINATION.—Clauses (i) and (ii) 

6 of subparagraph (A) shall not apply to interest 

7 costs paid or accrued after December 31, 

8 2019.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to interest costs paid or accrued 

11 after December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY FREEDOM FOUNDATION, petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 17-274.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Nautilus, Inc., a Washington corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:


To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





March 8, 2011By:/s/ Edward J. BramsonDateEdward J. Bramson,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.