alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**WILLIAM HUGHES,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 427 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 8th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO CORTEZ-ARREOLA, AKA

Pedro Cortez,

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 20-72055

Agency No. A205-117-014

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 10, 2023** 

Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Cortez-Arreola petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’s decision affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for

withholding of removal. We dismiss the petition.

FILED

MAY 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we may review a final order of removal only if

the petitioner “has exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him or her]

as of right.” This provision requires petitioners to present arguments they advance

before this court to the Board first. See Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th

888, 894 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e have held that the statute also requires issue

exhaustion, or, in other words, that it permits us to consider only those issues that

the petitioner properly raised before the agency.”) (collecting cases). To exhaust

an argument, a petitioner must identify it to the Board in a manner precise enough

to put it “on notice of what was being challenged.” Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952,

960 (9th Cir. 2020).

Cortez-Arreola argues before us that the agency erred by (1) failing to

consider past persecution from his perspective as a minor at the relevant time; and

(2) finding him capable of relocating to other parts of Mexico. Yet he raised

neither of these arguments to the Board. The Board, as a result, did not have an

opportunity to address them.

Because Cortez-Arreola failed to comply with § 1252(d)’s exhaustion

requirement, we dismiss the petition. The temporary stay of removal remains in

place until the mandate issues. Cortez-Arreola’s motion for a stay of removal, Dkt.

30, is otherwise denied.

2
DISMISSED.

3
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,that:

 

(1) The accompanying  quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended January 31, 2010, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934,  and

 

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

 

 
| Date: March 17, 2010 |   | /s/ Robert J. Ferguson                                     |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Robert J. Ferguson, President and Chief Executive  Officer |
|                      |   |                                                       |
|                      |   |                                                       |
| Date: March 17, 2010 |   | /s/ Brett L. Frevert                                       |
|                      |   | Brett L. Frevert, Interim Chief Financial Officer          |

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2005N-0083]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; General Licensing Provisions: 
Biologics License Application, Changes to an Approved Application, 
Labeling, Revocation and Suspension, and Forms FDA 356h and 2567

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``General Licensing Provisions: 
Biologics License Application, Changes to an Approved Application, 
Labeling, Revocation and Suspension, and Forms FDA 356h and 2567'' has 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Management 
Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 21, 2005 (70 
FR 42068), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0338. 
The approval expires on September 30, 2008. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: October 3, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-20306 Filed 10-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4597 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4597

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the intentional 
   discrimination of a person or organization by an employee of the 
                       Internal Revenue Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2014

 Mr. Culberson (for himself, Mr. Carter, Mr. Stockman, Mr. Neugebauer, 
Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, and Mr. Chabot) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the intentional 
   discrimination of a person or organization by an employee of the 
                       Internal Revenue Service.

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

SECTION 1. INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYEE OF THE INTERNAL 
              REVENUE SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 93 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1925. Intentional discrimination by employee of the Internal 
              Revenue Service
    ``(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of 
the Internal Revenue Service to, regardless of whether the officer or 
employee is acting under color of law, willfully act, or purport to 
act, in his official capacity with the intent to injure, oppress, 
threaten, intimidate, or single out and subject to undue scrutiny for 
purposes of harassment any person or organization in any State--
            ``(1) based solely or primarily on the political, economic, 
        or social positions held or expressed by the person or 
        organization; or
            ``(2) because the person or organization has expressed a 
        particular political, economic, or social position using any 
        words or writing allowed by law.
    ``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be 
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
    ``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `State' means a State 
of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
territory, or possession of the United States.''.
    (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 93 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 1924 the following:

``1924. Intentional discrimination by employee of the Internal Revenue 
                            Service.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Assante M. SIMS

358P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Assante M. Sims, for Sims, Assante M.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of October 2018 by Defendant for Dismissal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Derby Cycle Corporation


Abingdon Rubber & Tyre Co. (1970) Ltd.
Abraham Brothers (P&A) (Pty) Ltd.
Armstrong Cycles Ltd.
Auto Velos Ltd.
Beatty & Crabbe Ltd.
Bicycle Manufacturers Ltd.
Bike Handels GmbH
The British Cycle Corporation Ltd.
BSA Cycles Ireland Ltd.
BSA Cycles Ltd.
Carlton Cycles Ltd.
Centum Investments N.V.
Century Cycle Manufacturing Corporation
Curragh Finance Co.
Cycle Finance Co. (Pty) Ltd.
Cyclemark Trust
Cycsad Engineering (Pty) Ltd.
Derby Component Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd.
Derby Cycle Werke GmbH
Derby Fahrrader GmbH
Derby Nederland BV
Derby Finance NV
Derby Holding BV
Derby Holding Ltd.
Derby Industries Ltd.
Derby Industries (Pty) Ltd.
Derby Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd.
Derby Holding (Deutschland) GmbH
Derby Sweden AB.
Derby (HK) Trading Co. Ltd.
Derby Trading Co. Inc.
Engelbert Wiener Bike-Parts GmbH
Gazelle Cycle Co. Ltd.
The Hercules Cycle & Motor Co. (Ireland) Ltd.
The Hercules Cycle & Motor Co. Ltd.
InterDerby Group Finance NV
The Irish Engineering Co. Ltd.
The Irish Raleigh Cycle Co. Ltd.
J.A. Phillips & Co. Ltd.
J.B. Brooks & Co. Ltd.
J.H. Slotar & Co. (Pty) Ltd.
Koninklinjke Gazelle B.V.
Lyon Investments BV (formerly Lyon Cycle BV
Moulton Bicycles Ltd.
New Hudson Cycle Co. Ltd.
NV Dierense Maatschapij Tot Exploitatie van Woningen en Assurantien
NW Sportgerate GmbH
Norman Cycles Ltd.
Phillips Cycles Ltd.


<PAGE>
 
PI Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd.
Probike South Africa (Pty) Ltd.
Derby WS Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH.
Raleigh Cycles (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd.
Raleigh BV
Raleigh BVBA
Raleigh Fahrrader GmbH
Raleigh Industries Limited
Raleigh Industries of Canada Limited
Raleigh Ireland Ltd.
Raleigh Europe BV
Raleigh Technical Services S.A.
Raleigh (Services) Ltd.
The Raleigh Cycle Corporation
Raleigh International Limited
Raleigh Technical Services Ltd.
The Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd.
Reliable Cycle Co. (Pty) Ltd.
The Robin Hood Cycle Co. Ltd.
Rudge Whitworth Ltd.
Rudge-Whitworth (Ireland) Ltd.
Sturmey Archer Europa BV
Sturmey-Archer Limited
Sturmey-Archer of America Inc.
The Sun Cycle & Fittings Co. Ltd.
Sunbeam Cycle Co. Ltd.
Shenzen Raleigh Industrial Development Co. Ltd.
Triumph Cycle Co. Ltd.
Univega Beteiligungen GmbH
Univega Bike & Sport Switzerland AG
Univega Bikes & Sports Europe GmbH
Univega Worldwide GmbH
Winora-Staiger GmbH
The Wright Saddle Co. Ltd.
EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------





  Insilco Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
  Insilco Teoranta, an Ireland corporation
  Precision Cable Manufacturing Co., Inc., a Texas corporation
  Eyelets For Industry, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation
  Insilco Technologies, (UK), Ltd., a Northern Ireland corporation
  Precision Cable Mfg Corp. de Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation
  EFI Metal Forming, Inc., a Connecticut corporation
  T.A.T. Technology, a Canada corporation
  Insilco Healthcare Management Company, a Delaware corporation
  Signal Dominicana, S.A. a Dominican Republic corporation
  Stewart Connector Systems, (Japan), Inc., a Japan corporation
  Stewart Connector GmbH, a Germany corporation
  Stewart Connector Systems de Mexico, S.A. de C. V., a Mexico corporation
  Signal Caribe, Inc., a Delaware corporation
  Stewart Connector Systems, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
  Signal Transformer Co., Inc. a Delaware corporation
  InNet Technologies, Inc., a California corporation
  Suntex Technology Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
  Top East Corporation Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
  Insilco International Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation
  Signal Transformer Mexicana, S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation
  Sempco, S.A. de C.V. a Mexico corporation
  Insilco Deutschland GmbH, a German corporation
  Insilco Technology (Canada) Corporation, a Canada corporation
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00301-CR

ROBERT RAY MCMULLEN

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

156th District Court of Live Oak County, Texas

Trial Cause No. L-12-0068-CR-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 31, 2014
Document Headings

                    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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense; Defense Information Systems Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice of Membership of the Defense Information Systems Agency Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of members to the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Performance Review Board. The Performance Review Board provides a fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and makes recommendations to the Director, Defense Information Systems Agency, regarding final performance ratings and performance awards for DISA SES members.

# DATES:

October 14, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Carrie Bazemore, Chief, Civilian Personnel Division, Defense Information Systems Agency, P.O. Box 4502, Arlington, Virginia 22204-4502, (703) 607-4400.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DISA career executives appointed to serve as members of the BISA Performance Review Board. Appointees will serve one year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

MG Marilyn A. Quagliotti, USA, Vice Director, DISA, Chairperson.

Ms. Diann L. McCoy, Component Acquisition Executive, DISA, Member.

Mr. John I. Garing, Director for Strategic Planning and Information, DISA, Member.

Mr. John J. Penkoske, Jr., Director for Manpower, Personnel, and Security, DISA, Member.

Dated: October 6, 2005.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 05-20567 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### STATE ex rel. David BOUDREAUX v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2229.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Boudreaux, David;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 93-1435; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-615.

Denied. Untimely and repetitive. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ALBERT LEE SOLES

No. 735SC444

(Filed 11 July 1973)

Appeal by defendant from *Wells, Judge,*13 November 1972 Session of New Hanover Superior Court.

By six indictments defendant was charged with (1) felonious breaking, entering and larceny on 31 March 1972, (2) felonious breaking, entering and larceny on 9 July 1972, (3) felonious larceny on 25 March 1972, (4) felonious breaking, entering and larceny on 25 March 1972, (5) felonious breaking, entering and larceny on 24 July 1972 and (6) felonious breaking and entering on 3 March 1972. At trial defendant, through his court appointed counsel, tendered pleas of guilty to five counts of felonious breaking or entering and five counts of felonious larceny. After due inquiry as to the voluntariness of the pleas and an adjudication that the pleas were freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency, the court entered judgments imposing lengthy prison sentences from which judgments, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Russell G. Walker, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Herbert P. Scott for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

Inasmuch as defendant pled guilty, this appeal presents only the question whether error appears on the face of the record proper. *State v. Roberts,*279 N.C. 500, 183 S.E. 2d 647 (1971). A careful review of the record discloses no error. The bills of indictment are regular in all respects; defendant’s pleas were understandingly and voluntarily made; and the sentences imposed are within the statutory limits. *State v. Roberts, supra; State v. Wyatt,*16 N.C. App. 626, 192 S.E. 2d 683 (1972).

The judgments appealed from are

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Baley concur..
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4765 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4765

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize individuals who are 
pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under laws 
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to receive work-study 
allowances for certain outreach services provided through congressional 
                    offices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2010

Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Mr. Filner, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Walden, 
Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Schrader, Mr. Wu, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Carney, 
Mr. Courtney, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr. Perriello) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize individuals who are 
pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under laws 
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to receive work-study 
allowances for certain outreach services provided through congressional 
                    offices, 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. EXPANSION OF WORK-STUDY ALLOWANCE TO INCLUDE CERTAIN 
              OUTREACH SERVICES CONDUCTED THROUGH CONGRESSIONAL 
              OFFICES.

    Section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(G) The following activities carried out at the offices 
        of Members of Congress for such Members:
                    ``(i) The distribution of information to members of 
                the Armed Forces, veterans, and their dependents about 
                the benefits and services under laws administered by 
                the Secretary and other appropriate governmental and 
                non-governmental programs.
                    ``(ii) The preparation and processing of papers and 
                other documents, including documents to assist in the 
                preparation and presentation of claims for benefits 
                under laws administered by the Secretary.''.
                                 <all>
```
DUNHILL HOLDINGS, LLC v. LINDBERG, et al.

313P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Matthew Nis Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kip David Nelson, Attorney at Law, for Dunhill Holdings, LLC, et al.

Robert E. Zaytoun, Attorney at Law, Matthew D. Ballew, Attorney at Law, John R. Taylor, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, John N. Hutson, Jr., Attorney at Law, N. Cole Williams, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Lindberg, Tisha L.

Anthony D. Taibi, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Massey, Wes

Ronald W. Merritt, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Boone, Derek

Joseph A. Schouten, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Merritt, Hardee

David O. Lewis, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Herndon, Craig

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of September 2018 by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff and Third-Party Plaintiff for Expedited Consideration:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."