alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as responde nt pursuant to Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1195

___________ Filiberto Degante, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 1 Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: June 2, 2009 Filed: June 8, 2009

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Filiberto Degante, a native of Mexico, pe titions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that summarily affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determinati on that Degante failed to show the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship that his rem oval would cause his United-States-citizen-2- children. See8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (cancellation-o f-removal eligibility requirements for nonpermanent residents); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regard ing denial of relief under, inter alia, § 1229b); Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir. 2007) (whether alien meets exceptional-and-ex tremely-unusual-hardship threshold “‘is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review’” under § 1252(a)(2)(B) (quoting Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam))). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 10.1



              WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT FOR

                 UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


On July 27, 2005, the UnionBanCal Corporation board of directors approved an
increase in compensation payable to directors who are not full-time officers or
employees of UnionBanCal or The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Limited, or its
affiliates ("non-employee directors") for combined service on the UnionBanCal
and/or Union Bank of California, N.A. boards. The increase is effective
retroactively to January 1, 2005. The increase in compensation is as follows:

(1) The annual cash retainer payable to non-employee directors will increase to
$35,000 per year, from $30,000 per year;

(2) The fee paid to non-employee directors for each board or committee meeting
attended will increase to $1,500 per meeting, from $1,000 per meeting, except
that when board meetings of UnionBanCal and Union Bank of California, N.A., are
held on the same day and when the same committees of UnionBanCal and Union Bank
of California, N.A., have a combined meeting, the total fee, in each case, is
limited to $1,500;

(3) The annual retainer fee payable to the chair of each board committee (except
as noted below) will increase to $10,000 per year, from $5,000 per year;

(4) The annual retainer of the Chair of the Audit Committee of the board will
increase to $25,000 per year, from $10,000 per year;

(5) The annual retainer fee payable to the Chair of the Finance & Capital
Committee of the board will increase to $15,000 per year, from $5,000 per year;
and

(6) The Lead Independent Director of the board (a new board position) will
receive an annual retainer of $50,000;

(7) Beginning in 2005, an annual restricted stock grant to non-employee
directors with a value of $55,000, subject to such terms and conditions of the
grant, including the determination of the grant date, as the independent
Executive Compensation & Benefit Committee of the board shall determine; and

(8) For new non-employee directors elected to the board, an initial grant of
restricted stock with a fair market value of $110,000 on the date of election,
subject to such terms and conditions as the independent Executive Compensation &
Benefit Committee of the board shall determine.

The increase in compensation follows the recommendation of an independent
compensation consultant, based on an analysis of the compensation paid to
directors of industry peers and competitive practices, and reflects the
increased responsibilities of board members following the adoption of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, new Securities and Exchange Commission regulations
and additional New York Stock Exchange listing standards.
James and Charlotte COKER, Robert and Rebecca Darconte, and Donald and Bonita Shoe v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION.

No. 532A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Mona Lisa Wallace, Salisbury, Cathy Williams, K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, Gary K. Shipman, Wilmington, for James Coker, et al.

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Raleigh, Allison O. VanLanningham, Greensboro, Raymond M. Kethledge, Troy, MI, for DaimlerChrysler Corp.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiffs on the 20th day of September 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Plaintiff's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
# The Attorney General of Texas April 6, 1978 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General
Honorable Barry Read Texas State Board ofExaminers of Psychologists 108West 15thStreet Austin, Texas 78701 Opinion No.H- 115 1 Re: Whether the Board of Examiners of Psychologists may consider postdoctoral courses in determining whether an applicant has met the educational requirements for licensing. Dear Mr.Read: You have requested our opinion regarding whether the Board of Examiners of Psychologists may consider postdoctoral courses in determining the eligibility of an applicant to take the examination for certification as a psychologist. Section ll ofarticle 4512c,V.T.C.S., provides, inpertinent part:

An applicant is qualified to take the examination for certification as apsychologist: (a) ifhe has received the doctoral degree based upon a program of studies whose content was primarily psychological from an accredited educational institution or its substantial equivalent in both subject matter and extent oftraining.

.. . Thus, an individual may qualify to take the certification examination in one of two ways: (1)by earning a doctoral degree in psychology from an accredited institution; or (2) by receiving the “substantial equivalent” thereof. Since “substantial equivalent” is not defined in the statute, we believe that the Legislature intended to permit the Board to delineate its scope. The Board isempowered by section 8(a)to

make all rules, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of this state, which are reasonably necessary for the proper performance of its duties and regulations ofproceedings before it.

p; 4672Honorable Barry Read - Page 2 (H-1151)

Inour opinion, the Board is clearly authorized to determine by rule the meaning of
“substantial equivalent,” and to consider postdoctoral courses as fulfilling part of the requirement. Attorney General Opinion M-785(1971)isnot to the contrary. Inthat opinion, this office, held that, under section 15(b)(2)of article 4512c, the Board was not authorized to certify a person whohad amasters’ degree based onaprogram which was not primarily psychological, but who had passed additional courses in psychology. Unlike section 11,section 15(b)(2)does not permit any substitution for its requirement. It is our opinion, therefore, that the Board of Examiners of Psychologists may consider postdoctoral courses as one factor in determining the eligibility of sn applicant to take the examination for certification as a psychologist. SUMMARY

The Board of Examiners of Psychologists may consider postdoctoral courses as one factor in determining the eligibility .of an applicant to take the examination for certification asapsychologist.

Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED:

Opinion Committee

-p. 4673
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12


                           MCII HOLDINGS (USA) INC.

              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         --------------  -------------  -------------  ------------- --------------
                                                              1994            1995           1996           1997           1998
                                                         --------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  --------------
<S>                                                      <C>              <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>          
Income from continuing operations before                                  #
provision for income taxes                               $       -7041    $     25460   $      46148   $      59429   $       69871

Add:                                                                   
    Interest expense, including amortization                     8,824          12855          12857          14881           16816
    Allocated interest                                           15587    #     22099           3172           6978            3164
    Finance interest                                               984           2658           3605           2394            2765
                                                         --------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  --------------
                                                                         
      Earnings, as adjusted                              $      18,354    $     63072   $      65782   $      83682   $       92616
                                                         ==============  =============  =============  =============  ==============



Fixed charges:
    Interest expense, including amortization                      8824          12855          12857          14881           16816
    Allocated interest                                           15587          22099           3172           6978            3164
    Finance interest                                               984           2658           3605           2394            2765
                                                         --------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  --------------

                        Fixed charges                    $      25,395    $     37612   $      19634   $      24253   $       22745
                                                         ==============  =============  =============  =============  ==============

                                                                     *                               
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                  .7            1.7            3.4            3.5             4.1
                                                         ==============  =============  =============  =============  ==============

</TABLE>


*   Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges
    Coverage deficiency was $7,041
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20488

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVE ARTHUR GARWOOD, also known

as Andrew Patrick Garwood, also 

known as Bubba G,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-279-1

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

March 6, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Chris Iles, the attorney appointed to represent Steve

Arthur Garwood on appeal, has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Garwood has received copies of counsel’s motion and brief

but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record

and brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
G:\opin-sc\02-20488.opn.wpd 2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this

appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5354 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5354

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain theatrical lighting 
                               fixtures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

 Mr. Ackerman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain theatrical lighting 
                               fixtures.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN THEATRICAL LIGHTING FIXTURES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Theatrical          Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          lighting fixtures                                                  31/2011.......
                          of plastic; and
                          on/off, automatic
                          rotating, LED,
                          light directing
                          LED, and motion
                          activated
                          spotlights of
                          plastic (provided
                          for in subheading
                          9405.40.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5493 

To provide that the usual day for paying salaries in or under the House 

of Representatives may be established by regulations of the Committee 

on House Administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2008 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide that the usual day for paying salaries in or 

under the House of Representatives may be established 

by regulations of the Committee on House Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMIN4 ISTRATION TO ESTABLISH DAY FOR PAYING 

5 SALARIES IN OR UNDER THE HOUSE OF REP6 RESENTATIVES. 

7 Section 116(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropria8 tions Act, 2002 (2 U.S.C. 60d–1) is amended by adding 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5493 IH

1 at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘Notwithstanding 

2 the previous sentence, the Committee on House Adminis3 tration may by regulation provide for the payment of sala4 ries with respect to a month on a date other than the date 

5 provided under the previous sentence as may be necessary 

6 to conform to generally accepted accounting practices.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
##### 



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 Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc.(the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 27, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lloyd Sorenson, as Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:  (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. Date: May 11, 2005 /s/ Lloyd R. SorensonLloyd R. SorensonExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# L_2017086EN.01001301.xml

| 31.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 86/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 86/13

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/614

of 21 March 2017

appointing a member, proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Hella DUNGER-LÖPER, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Hella DUNGER-LÖPER,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Mr Gerry WOOP, Staatssekretär für Europa (Land Berlin). |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Gerry WOOP, Staatssekretär für Europa (Land Berlin).

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 21 March 2017.

For the Council

The President

E. SCICLUNA

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

2

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

3

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31193 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALFRED HENRY, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CR-20001

- - - - - - - - - - July 17, 1997 Before REAVLEY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfred Henry, Jr., appeals the denial of his “Motion for Correction of Sentence” following his guilty-plea conviction for the use of a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Henry incorrectly based the motion upon 18 U.S.C. § 3742, which does not authorize motion practice. The proper vehicle for Henry’s challenge is 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Santora , 711 F.2d 41, 42 (5th Cir.No. 96-31193 - 2 - 1983). Because the motion is a § 2255 motion, Henry must secure a certificate of appealability (COA) to obtain appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A ruling on a COA should be made in the first instance by the district court, sua sponte if no request is made. Muniz v. Johnson , ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. May 20, 1997, No. 96-50508), 1997 WL 265120, at *2; see United States v. Orozco , 103 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 1996). Henry made no such request in the district court, and there has been no ruling by the district court. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court for it to determine whether a COA should issue and, if so, what issues warrant appealability. See Muniz . Additionally, it is noted that the district court erred by assessing the appellate filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA); the PLRA does not apply to appeals from the denial of § 2255 motions. United States v. Cole , 101 F.3d 1076, 1077 (5th Cir. 1996).
REMANDED.
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 Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Jerry PascucciCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

Date: May 24, 2007

----