alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CLD-274 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2692

___________

IN RE: ABRAHAM NEE NTREH,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

District Court of the Virgin Islands

(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 1-02-cr-00007-001)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

July 23, 2015

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: August 19, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Abraham Nee Ntreh, proceeding pro se, petitions for a writ of mandamus 

compelling the District Court of the Virgin Islands to adjudicate his petition for a writ of 

error coram nobis. We will dismiss the mandamus petition as moot.

 

*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Ntreh, a Ghanian national, was convicted in 2003 of unlawful reentry into the 

United States, and of making false statements to a United States official. Ntreh was 

sentenced to 14 months in prison and later removed from the United States. We affirmed 

Ntreh’s conviction, vacated his sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 

(2005), and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Ntreh, 142 F. App’x 106 (3d 

Cir. 2005) (non-precedential). After Ntreh was resentenced, we affirmed the District 

Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. United States v. Ntreh, 546 F. 

App’x 105 (3d Cir. 2014) (non-precedential).

On May 27, 2014, Ntreh filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in District 

Court claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. On December 31, 2014, Ntreh filed a

mandamus petition in this Court asking us to compel the District Court to rule on his 

petition. We denied the petition without prejudice to refiling in the event the District 

Court did not act on the petition within a reasonable time. We noted that the docket 

reflected that a recusal order had been entered and that the case had recently been 

reassigned to another District Judge. See C.A. No. 14-4841. 

On July 14, 2015, Ntreh filed the present mandamus petition renewing his request 

that we compel the District Court to rule on his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. 

The District Court docket reflects that the District Court adjudicated Ntreh’s petition on 

July 17, 2015. Ntreh’s request for mandamus relief is thus moot.

Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5282 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5282

           To extend the suspension of duty on Lycopene 10%.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To extend the suspension of duty on Lycopene 10%.

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

SECTION 1. LYCOPENE 10%.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.41 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Lycopene 10%) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect 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>
```
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-1029]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC, has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 13, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before September 13, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov*
                         and follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for public view on 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov.*
                         If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on April 21, 2022, AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC, Highway 50 & Hazel Avenue, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
ScheduleNorlevorphanol
9634
IMethylphenidate
1724
IILevomethorphan
9210
IILevorphanol
9220
IIThebaine
9333
IIRemifentanil
9739
IITapentadol
9780
II
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. Kristi O'Malley, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-15104 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2424

CHRISTINE SOLEM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. CARLTON COURTER, III, Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District

Judge. (CA-99-2-3)

Submitted: February 22, 2000 Decided: March 20, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christine Solem, Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Wilkinson, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Big Stone Gap, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Christine Solem appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Solem v.

Courter, No. CA-99-2-3 (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
In the Matter of B.D. appealed by parents.

No. 317P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Douglas L. Hall, Morganton, for Mother.

David A. Perez, for Father.

Judy N. Rudolph, Attorney Advocate, for Guardian ad Litem.

Renae Alt, for Buncombe County DSS.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of December 2005 by Respondents (Mother & Father) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
H. R. 5551 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to implement the increase 

provided under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2008, in the amount 

of funds made available for the compensation of attorneys representing indigent 

defendants in the District of Columbia courts, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF INCREASE PROVIDED IN FUNDING 

FOR COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING 

INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

COURTS. 

(a) INCREASE IN HOURLY RATE.—Section 11–2604(a), District 

of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking ‘‘$65 per hour’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$80 per hour’’. 

(b) INCREASE IN CAPS ON TOTAL COMPENSATION PAID FOR PARTICULAR CASES.—Section 11–2604(b), District of Columbia Official 

Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) The compensation to be paid to an attorney appointed 

pursuant to this chapter shall not exceed the following maximum 

amounts: 

‘‘(1) For representation of a defendant before the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia for misdemeanors or felonies, 

the maximum amount set forth in section 3006A(d)(2) of title 

18, United States Code, for representation of a defendant before 

the United States magistrate judge or the district court for 

misdemeanors or felonies (as the case may be). 

‘‘(2) For representation of a defendant before the District 

of Columbia Court of Appeals, the maximum amount set forth 

in section 3006A(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code, for representation of a defendant in an appellate court. 

‘‘(3) For representation of a defendant in post-trial matters 

for misdemeanors or felonies, the amount applicable under 

paragraph (1) for misdemeanors or felonies (as the case may 

be).’’. 
H. R. 5551—2 

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect 

to cases and proceedings initiated on or after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
* 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. 1 United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________ No. 05-20125

______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OLABODE TIMOTHY ARANSIOLA, also known as BJ, also known as Bolaji; TAIYE KASSIM, also known as Sodik Adegun, also known as Sediq Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

Case No. 4:03-CR-436-10

___________________________________________________ Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Having carefully considered each of the defendants’ assignments of error in light of the record, the written and oral arguments of the parties, and the law applicable to the case, and finding each of the assignments to be without reversible merit, we therefore AFFIRM the convictions and sentences of the defendants. AFFIRMED.
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 Spirit Finance Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Catherine Long, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: May 10, 2005 |  |                                                        
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | /s/CATHERINE LONGCatherine Long
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
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 Annual Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George P. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  July 14, 2011
  /s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChief Financial Officer


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

# What is a tidal wave?

## A tidal wave is a **shallow water wave** caused by the **gravitational interactions** between the Sun, Moon, and Earth.

The rise and fall of the tides play an important role in the natural world and can have a marked effect on maritime-related activities. The image aboves shows the NOAA San Francisco Tide Station, in operation for more than 150 years.

A tidal wave is a regularly reoccurring shallow water wave caused by effects of the gravitational interactions between the Sun, Moon, and Earth on the ocean. The term "tidal wave" is often used to refer to tsunamis; however, this reference is incorrect as tsunamis have nothing to do with tides.

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          -  Where to get NOAA Tides and Currents data.
          -  Measuring Water Levels (video podcast)
          -  Tides and Currents Levels (audio podcast)
          -  Tides and Water Levels ,  NOS Education
          -  Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services 

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick Thomas BAILEY.

No. 163P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Staci Tolliver Meyer, Special Deputy Attorney General, James E. Hardin, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 5th day of April 2004 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

> "Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of April 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
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 AER Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company.





Date:  May 13, 2005



/s/ Paul John

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

Paul John, Treasurer and Director

Principal Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARMJIT SINGH GREWAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73331

Agency No. A076-378-504

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 15, 2013** 

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

 Karmjit Singh Grewal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.

FILED

OCT 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Grewal’s untimely motion to

reopen because it considered the record and acted within its discretion in

determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility

for the relief sought. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 995-97 (9th Cir.

2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie eligibility for relief and discussing

consequences of lack of credibility); Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir.

2011). 

In light of our conclusion, we do not reach Grewal’s contention regarding a

lack of time limits for filing a motion to reopen to apply for relief under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We reject

Grewal’s contention that the agency did not adequately examine his evidence. See

Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not

overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record). 

 We lack jurisdiction to consider Grewal’s challenge to the denial of

cancellation of removal based on a claim of exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship. See id. We also lack jurisdiction over Grewal’s unexhausted challenge

2 11-73331
to the agency’s failure to consider his eligibility for CAT relief in the underlying

proceedings. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 11-73331
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5569 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5569

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 10, 2008

                                Received

                             August 1, 2008

       Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional center pilot program, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 
1153 note) is amended by striking ``shall set aside'' and all that 
follows through ``eligible for admission'' and inserting ``shall set 
aside 3,000 visas annually for 20 years to include such aliens as are 
eligible for admission''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of the Congress that, to the extent practicable, 
qualifying investments under section 610 of the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) should be made in 
targeted employment areas (as defined in section 203(b)(5)(B)(ii) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(B)(ii))), 
including rural areas (areas other than an area within a metropolitan 
statistical area or within the outer boundary of any city or town 
having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent 
decennial census of the United States)) and high unemployment areas 
(areas that have experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of 
the national average rate).

            Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```