alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1093

CORNELL D.M. JUDGE CORNISH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN J. DOLL, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce fo r Intellectual Property

and Acting Director of the United St ates Patent and Trademark Office,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

HARRY I. MOATZ, Director of Offic e of Enrollment and Discipline,

and WILLIAM J. GRIFFIN, Attorney, Of fice of Enrollment and Discipline,

Defendants-Appellees.

Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish , of Washington, DC, pro se.

Sydney O. Johnson, Jr. , Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States

Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for the Director of the

United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T.

Chen , Solicitor, and Ronald K. Jaicks , Associate Solicitor.

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Judge Richard W. RobertsNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1093

CORNELL D.M. JUDGE CORNISH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN J. DOLL, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce fo r Intellectual Property

and Acting Director of the United Stat es Patent and Trademark Office,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

HARRY I. MOATZ, Director of Offic e of Enrollment and Discipline,

and WILLIAM J. GRIFFIN, Attorney, Of fice of Enrollment and Discipline,

Defendants-Appellees.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Distric t Court for the Distr ict of Columbia

in CASE NO(S). 07-CV-1719

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (MICHEL, Chief Judge , LOURIE, and RADER, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed.Cir.R.36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED August 4, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BAYRON CABRERA

- MORALES, AKA Bayron Danilo Cabrera Morales, AKA Bayron Danilo Cabrera,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73656

Agency No. A072

- 814

- 881

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted July 11, 2017 **

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Bayron Cabrera

- Morales , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the

* 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). 

# FILED

JUL 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 73656

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisd iction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lopez

Cardona v. Holder , 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) . We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials petitioner references in his opening brief or
filed separately (Docket Entry No. 21) that are not part of the administrative

record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s fi nding that, even if credible,

Cabrera

- Morales failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured

if returned to Guatemala. See Lopez

- Cardona , 662 F.3d at 1114.

W e lack jurisdiction to consider Cabrera

- Morales’s contentions regarding

removability, asylum, and procedural due process that he presents for the first time

in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004)

(petitioner must exhaust claim in administrativ e proceedings below)

. Finally, Cabrera

- Morales’s challenge to the agency’s bond determination is

not properly before us. See Leonardo v. Crawford , 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.

2011) (setting forth procedure for challenging bond determinations). Thus, we

dismiss Cabrera

- Morales’ motion to appeal the bond decision (Docket Entry No.

25 ) as outside the scope of Cabrera

- Morales’ petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ANDRE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00232-MP -GRJ

UNION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 7, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the

orders of the Court. The time for filing objections has passed, and none have been filed. The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that despite several orders of the Court, the Plaintiff has

refused to file his complaint on the proper forms and has refused to file a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. This case is dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the Court and for

failure to prosecute.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00232-MP-GRJ Document 8 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 1
|                                     |        |                                                                                                |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |   |                                                                                                |   |
| Dated:      November 16,      2009  | By:    | /s/      James A. Banister                                                                          |   |
|                                     |   | James      A. Banister,President      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

|                                           |   |                                                                                                                           |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:      November 16,      2009   | By:    | /s/      Rebecca D. Hershinger                                                                                                 |   |
|                                           |   | Rebecca      D. Hershinger,Chief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer andPrincipal      Accounting Officer) |   |

----
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5280 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ‘‘George P. Kazen 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’, and to designate the 

jury room in that Federal building and United States courthouse as 

the ‘‘Marcel C. Notzon II Jury Room’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2018 

Mr. CUELLAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, 

as the ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’, and to designate the jury room in 

that Federal building and United States courthouse as 

the ‘‘Marcel C. Notzon II Jury Room’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BUILDING DESIGNATION. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

5 States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in La6 redo, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5280 IH

1 ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 

2 Courthouse’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the Federal building and United States court6 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

7 a reference to the ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and 

8 United States Courthouse’’. 

9 SEC. 2. JURY ROOM DESIGNATION. 

10 (a) DESIGNATION.—The jury room located in the 

11 Federal building and United States courthouse referred 

12 to in section 1 shall be known and designated as the 

13 ‘‘Marcel C. Notzon II Jury Room’’. 

14 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg15 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

16 States to the jury room referred to in subsection (a) shall 

17 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Marcel C. Notzon 

18 II Jury Room’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
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 November 5, 2010

s1102 

# Order

November 5, 2010

140629 (80)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140629 COA: 287146 Macomb CC: 2006-005398-FC STEVEN MICHAEL WACLAWSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the defendant’ s motion to exceed the 50-page limit for his application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is DENIED. The defendant failed to provid e extraordinary and compelling reasons in support of the submission of an applicati on with 81 pages of substantive argument (including 37 pages of text numbered by Roman Numerals and incorrectly labeled a “Statement of Jurisdiction and Relief Requested ”). Applications for leave to appeal must conform to MCR 7.302(1) and 7.212(B). Th e only exceptions to the 50-page limit provided at MCR 7.212(B) are for tables, i ndexes, and appendices. The Statement of Jurisdiction and Relief Requested is for a brie f description of jurisdiction and the relief sought only. Arguments regarding the substan tive issues are appropria tely placed in the argument section of the brief only. In addi tion, this Court will no t be considering the brief dated June 18, 2009, which the defendant filed in propria persona in the Court of Appeals and which is an attach ment to the defendant’s applic ation in this Court, because the defendant has cited no authority for a pplying Admin Order 2004-6, Standard 4 to filings in this Court. The defendant shall have 14 days fro m the date of this order to submit an application that c onforms to the court rules.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Real Goods Solar, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Schaeffer, President 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 my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 10, 2010



/s/ John SchaefferJohn SchaefferPresident (principal executive
officer)
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION   I, Richard R. Walters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report. 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report. 4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  August 17, 2007  By:   /s/ Richard R. Walters Richard R. Walters, President, Principal Executive Officer  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.     1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

KRISTIN TREMMEL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv17-SPM/GRJ

I.C. SYSTEM, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________/

ORDER ALLOWING ATTENDANCE BY TELEPHONE

This cause comes before the court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to

Allow a Telephonic Pre-Trial Conference. Doc. 31. Upon consideration, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion (doc.361) is granted.

2. Attorney for Plaintiff is responsible for arranging a conference call

to the Court at (352) 380-2742, at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, with

all of the attorneys and parties on the line.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HUNG NG,

ALIEN # A040-293-059,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv268-RH/WCS

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus

under § 2241 on June 29, 2010. Doc. 1. Petitioner was being detained at the Wakulla

County Jail in Crawfordville, Florida, at the time he initiated this case. Id. He is a native

of China, the country of his birth, had been in detention for more than six months at the

time of case initiation. He claimed Respondents had been unable to effect his removal,

will be unable to do so in the reasonably foreseeable future, yet refused to release him. 

Finding the petition sufficient, and noting Petitioner was not challenging the validity of

the removal order, only indefinite detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678

(2001), I entered a service order directing Respondents to respond. Doc. 12.
Page 2 of 2

After that order was entered on August 13, 2010, Petitioner's copy of court orders

were twice returned to the court as undeliverable. Docs. 16, 17. Respondents have

now filed a motion to dismiss this § 2241 petition as moot because Petitioner was

released from custody on July 20, 2010. Doc. 15.

As Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought in the petition, and in the

month since he was released he has not notified the Court of his release, it appears that

Petitioner has abandoned this litigation after being given the relief sought. This case is,

accordingly, moot and Petitioner no longer has a controversy with Respondents.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion to

dismiss, doc. 15, be GRANTED, and the § 2241 petition filed by Hung Ng be

DISMISSED as moot.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 27, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv268-RH/WCS
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5317 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AN ACT 

To repeal section 2141 of the Revised Statutes to remove 

the prohibition on certain alcohol manufacturing on Indian lands. 

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


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5317 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ALCO2 HOL MANUFACTURING ON INDIAN LANDS. 

3 Section 2141 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 251) 

4 is repealed. 

5 SEC. 2. NO EFFECT ON TAXATION OR STATE AUTHORITY TO 

6 REGULATE ALCOHOL WITHIN STATE BOR7 DERS. 

8 (a) NO EFFECT ON TAXATION.—Nothing in section 

9 1 or the repeal made by section 1 shall affect State or 

10 Federal taxation. 

11 (b) STATE AUTHORITY UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in 

12 section 1 or the repeal made by section 1 shall diminish, 

13 enlarge, or otherwise affect a State’s authority to regulate 

14 the importation and sale of alcoholic beverages within its 

15 own borders, including State authority over the manufac16 ture, distribution, transportation, or sale of intoxicating 

17 liquors. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 12, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2010219EN.01000501.xml

| 13.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5924 — Trident/Hellman & Friedman/Sedgwick)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 219/02

On 20 July 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5924. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5924. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2009166EN.01001301.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 July 2009

2009/C 166/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4090 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86530 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,0476 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5193 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9960 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,918 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 274,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7000 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3355 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2475 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1525 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7621 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5734 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9198 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1884 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0438 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 780,60 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,4140 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6259 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3360 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 340,05 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0238 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,567 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,8010 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,991 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7293 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,1765 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,6610 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4090

JPY

Japanese yen

132,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4453

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86530

SEK

Swedish krona

11,0476

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5193

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9960

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,918

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

274,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7000

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3355

RON

Romanian leu

4,2475

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1525

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7621

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5734

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9198

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1884

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0438

KRW

South Korean won

1 780,60

ZAR

South African rand

11,4140

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6259

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3360

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 340,05

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0238

PHP

Philippine peso

67,567

RUB

Russian rouble

44,8010

THB

Thai baht

47,991

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7293

MXN

Mexican peso

19,1765

INR

Indian rupee

68,6610

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---