alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-60754

Summary Calendar

YU CHUN LIAN

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A76 505 480

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Yu Chun Lian, a native and citizen of China, was ordered removed in

absentia after he failed to appear at a 1999 removal hearing. In 2005, Lian filed

a second motion to reopen the 1999 removal order. In his petition for review,

Lian argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion

by dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order denying that

motion. Lian does not dispute that his motion to reopen is his second and that

it is facially untimely, but instead argues that the “ordinary limits on filing a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60754

2

motion to reopen are not implicated” in his case because his motion was based

on new and material evidence establishing changed country conditions in China.

This court has jurisdiction to review the denial of an untimely motion to

reopen based on changed circumstances in the alien’s home country. Panjwani

v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir. 2005). The denial of the motion is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and the factual findings are review for

substantial evidence. Id.

The numerical and time limitations on motions to reopen do not apply

where the motion is based on “changed circumstances arising in the country of

nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such

evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered

or presented at the previous hearing.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii).

Lian has not shown that the BIA failed to consider the State Department

Report on Country Conditions. Rather, the BIA found that the documentary

evidence submitted by Lian, including the Country Report, reflected no change

in the conditions in China and that the evidence did not demonstrate that the

Chinese Government had a national policy of requiring forced sterilization of

parents who return with a second child born outside of China. See In re J-W-S,

24 I. & N. Dec. 185, 192 (BIA 2007). We decline to address Lian’s argument that

he is eligible for the underlying substantive relief of asylum, the withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See INS v.

Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002).

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer    I, Stephen B. Schneer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Develocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls.  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: December 10, 2007  /s/ Stephen B. Schneer Stephen B. Schneer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
CORWIN v. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO PLC, et al.

56PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Alan W. Duncan, Attorney at Law, Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jason M. Leviton, Attorney at Law, Joel A. Fleming, Attorney at Law, for Corwin, Robert (Dr.), et al.

Michael L. Robinson, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, H. Brent Helms, Attorney at Law, Gary A. Bornstein, Attorney at Law, for British American Tobacco PLC.

Ronald R. Davis, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, W. Andrew Copenhaver, Attorney at Law, James A. Dean, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Robert C. Micheletto, Attorney at Law, Thomas E. Lynch, Attorney at Law, Andrew S. Kleinfeld, Attorney at Law, for Reynolds American, Inc., et al.

James P. McLoughlin, Jr., Attorney at Law, Mark A. Nebrig, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Watkins, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Karen Seymour, Attorney at Law, Frank Schall, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Jobin, Luc, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of February 2017 by Gary A. Bornstein for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

y0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142449

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142449 COA: 293879 Wayne CC: 07-013928-FH ALBERT JAMES ISBY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 2, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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. 08-40733

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LARRY JOSEPH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-26-1

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Joseph, Jr., federal prisoner # 10774-078, was sentenced to 151

months in prison following his plea of guilty to possession with the intent to

distribute more than five grams, but less than 50 grams, of cocaine base (crack).

Following amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the offense

levels for crack cocaine offenses, the district court granted a motion by Joseph

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40733

2

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and reduced his sentence to 130 months,

which was at the bottom of the amended guidelines range. 

Joseph now appeals, arguing that the district court’s failure to consider the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or a sentence below the amended guidelines range

when it resentenced him violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). 

Joseph’s arguments are foreclosed in light of our recent decision in United

States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed

(Sept. 21, 2009) (No. 09-6657). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, the

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

Government’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4267 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4267

To amend the Commodity Exchange Act to provide relief for end users who 
          use physical contracts with volumetric optionality.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2014

Mr. McAllister introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Commodity Exchange Act to provide relief for end users who 
          use physical contracts with volumetric optionality.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Commodity Delivery Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. RELIEF FOR END USERS WHO USE PHYSICAL CONTRACTS WITH VOLUMETRIC 
              OPTIONALITY.

    Section 1a(47)(B)(ii) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 
1a(47)(B)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(ii) any purchase or sale of a 
                        nonfinancial commodity or security for deferred 
                        shipment or delivery, so long as the 
                        transaction is intended to be physically 
                        settled, including any stand-alone or embedded 
                        option for which exercise results in a physical 
                        delivery obligation;''.
                                 <all>
```
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 WCA Waste Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Tom J. Fatjo, Jr., Chief Executive 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), as applicable, 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.
  By:
                /s/ Tom
      J. Fatjo, Jr.Tom
      J. Fatjo, Jr.Chief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      6, 2008
  The
foregoing certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**







**CERTIFICATE
      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 Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.
      Stewart Parker, Chief Executive 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 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; and





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





/s/H.
                Stewart Parker
              H.
                Stewart Parker
              President
                and Chief Executive
                Officer
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 30254 Summary Calendar

**Craig Joseph Aucoin,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Madison Correctional Center; Damon Williams, Medical Director Madison Correctional Center;**  **Warden Madison Correctional Center; John Doe, ARP Administrator at Madison Correctional Center;**  **Medical Company at Madison Correctional Center; Security Management,**  **L.L.C.; Louisiana Department of Corrections; James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Department**  **of Public Safety and Corrections; John Doe, Louisiana Department of Corrections employee #1; John Doe,**  **Louisiana Department of Corrections employee #2; John Doe, Louisiana**  **Department of Corrections employee #3; John Doe, Louisiana Department of**  **Corrections employee #4; Jane Doe, Medical Staff at Madison Correctional Center #1; Jane Doe, Medical**  **Staff at Madison Correctional Center #2; Jane Doe, Medical Staff at Madison Corr**  **ectional Center #3; Jane Doe, Medical Staff at Madison Correctional Center #4,** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 31, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-30254 Document: 00516696962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023No. 22

- 30254

2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:21

- cv

- 03686

Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Oldham ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion if necessary. Hill v. City of Seven Points , 230 F.3d 167, 169 (5th Cir. 2000). In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, the district court granted a partial
dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims without stating it was a final judgment or asserting a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) designation. “Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals only from (1) a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) a decision that is deemed final d ue to jurisprudential exception or that has been properly certified as final pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); and (3) interlocutory orders that fall into specific classes, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), or that have been properly certified for appeal by the distri ct court, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc. , 981 F.2d 807, 809

- 10 (5th Cir. 1993). This partial dismissal is not a final or otherwise appealable order. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

* This opinion is no t designated for publication. See **5th Cir. R. 47.5**

. Case: 22-30254 Document: 00516696962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 22, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14426

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00054-CR-ORL-28-UAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY DOUGLAS HAYNES, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________

6:07-CR-00073-JA-KRS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY DOUGLAS HAYNES, JR.,

a.k.a. Ricky D. Haynes,

a.k.a. Lil Rick,

a.k.a. Ricky Douglas Haynes,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(October 22, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Randee J. Golder, appointed counsel for Ricky Douglas Haynes, Jr., in this

direct criminal appeal, has renewed her motion to withdraw from further

representation of the appellant, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Haynes has filed a motion to discharge

counsel and to appoint new counsel. Our independent review of the entire record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct.

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of

merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Haynes’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED, and Haynes’s motion is DENIED as moot.

2
Larry HOLBERT, Plaintiff, v. Ronald G. BLANCHARD, Blanchard & Newman, a partnership consisting of Ronald G. Blanchard and Gregory A. Newman, Katherine E. Fisher, and Siemens Law Office, PA, Defendants.

No. COA17-134

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
M A N D A T E

TO THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT of CALHOUN COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 2nd day of July,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Refugio Independent School District, Appellant,

v.

Ram-Bro Contracting, Inc.,

Professional Services Industries, Inc.,

and D. S. A., Inc.

Appellees.

CAUSE NO. 13-15-00016-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 14-09-2274)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 13th day of August, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK

FILE COPY
While appellant’s motion requests abatement, he has identified no reason for this 1

Court to abate the appeal and we fail to see any justification in doing so. Therefore, we

will limit our consideration to appellant’s request to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

NO. 07-08-0373-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 13, 2008

______________________________

MICHAEL D. BURLESON, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 140 DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; TH

NO. 2007-417,120; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Appellant, Michael D. Burleson, appealed the trial court’s denial of his application

for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged a prosecution on double jeopardy grounds.

However, appellant has now filed a Motion to Abate or, Alternatively, to Dismiss Appeal.1
2

Because the motion meets the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

44.2(a) and this court has not delivered its decision prior to receiving it, the motion is

hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s

request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.
Barbara G. O'NEAL, BY AND THROUGH G. Elvin SMALL, III, Guardian of the Estate of Barbara G. O'Neal v. Pamela Sue O'NEAL; Pamela Sue O'Neal, as Trustee of Barbara O'Neal Land Trust; Pamela Sue O'Neal, as Trustee of Barbara O'Neal Farm Land Trust; Pamela Sue O'Neal, as Trustee of Barbara O'Neal Barco Land Trust; Barbara O'Neal Land Trust; Barbara O'Neal Farm Land Trust; Barbara O'Neal Barco Land Trust; and Lori Ann Chappelle

No. 271P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

John M. Kirby, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for O'Neal, Pamela Sue (Ind. & Trustee).

G. Elvin Small, III, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, for O'Neal, Barbara G., et al.

Lori Ann Chappelle, for Chappelle, Lori Ann.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of August 2017 by Defendant (Pamela Sue O'Neal, individually and as Trustee) 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 28th of September 2017."