alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2099

ESAYAS GEBRU LOGA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: July 29, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010

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

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Garfield, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, 

D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, 

Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel, Pegah Vakili, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Esayas Gebru Loga, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his 

applications for relief from removal. 

Loga first challenges the determination that he failed 

to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a 

determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must 

show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 

persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Loga fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Loga cannot meet 

the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. 

INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 

480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below 

that Loga failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not 

that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:11cr8-SPM

SANTOS HERNANDEZ-DOMINGUEZ,

 a/k/a/ “Santos Hernandez,”

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF GUILTY PLEA

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, and subject to

the Court’s consideration of any Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(e)(2), the plea of guilty of the defendant, SANTOS HERNANDEZDOMINGUEZ, to Count One of the indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties

shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2011. 

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
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 BSV I, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas A. Dyer, 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 and
belief:





1.    The
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




Dated:
      September 25, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Douglas
      A. DyerDouglas
      A. Dyer
                  President
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)
                  (Principal
      Financial /Accounting
Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7696
LESLEY L. STAPLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE HATCHER; RONNIE MINTER; LEE STONE; SARGEANT TAYLOR; PATSY SCARCES, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-108-R) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 25, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lesley L. Staples, Appellant Pro Se. William Carrington Thompson, Chatham, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Lesley Staples appeals from the magistrate judge's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. * Staples' claim that he was unlawfully interrogated following his arrest was properly dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey , ___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188). Accordingly, weaffirm the dismissal of this claim on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Staples v. Hatcher , No. CA-95-108-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 5,1995). Our review of the record and proceedings before the magistrate judge concerning Staples' claim that he was denied proper medical care by prison staff reveals that the magistrate judgeproperly concluded that Staples failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need actionable under § 1983. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of this claim as well.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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DARRELL A. BONNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:11cv5/MCR/CJK

MIKE HALL,

Defendant.

____________________/

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

filed on October 1, 2012 (doc. 15), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after

reviewing objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is adopted as

the opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2012.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5378 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5378

     To require the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a 
proceeding to determine whether certain activities by licensees of the 
 Commission are undertakings under division A of subtitle III of title 
  54, United States Code, or major Federal actions under the National 
                   Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2018

 Mr. Scalise introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a 
proceeding to determine whether certain activities by licensees of the 
 Commission are undertakings under division A of subtitle III of title 
  54, United States Code, or major Federal actions under the National 
                   Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    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 ``Reducing Antiquated Permitting for 
Infrastructure Deployments Act'' or the ``RAPID Act''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING 
              UNDERTAKINGS AND MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS.

    (a) Proceeding Required.--Notwithstanding section 300320 of title 
54, United States Code, or section 102 of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332), not later than 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete a 
proceeding to determine--
            (1) the classes of activities of the entities to which the 
        Commission issues radio station licenses that do not constitute 
        an undertaking under such section 300320; and
            (2) the classes of activities of the entities to which the 
        Commission issues radio station licenses that do not constitute 
        a major Federal action under paragraph (2)(C) of such section 
        102.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
        Communications Commission; and
            (2) the term ``radio station license'' has the meaning 
        given the term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 
        (47 U.S.C. 153).
                                 <all>
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5385 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2018 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

program of payments to children’s hospitals that operate 

graduate medical education programs, and for other purposes. 

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


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5385 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dr. Benjy Frances 

3 Brooks Children’s Hospital GME Support Reauthoriza4 tion Act of 2018’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN’S HOS6 PITALS THAT OPERATE GRADUATE MEDICAL 

7 EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

8 Section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 256e) is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and each of 

11 fiscal years 2014 through 2018,’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018, and each 

13 of fiscal years 2019 through 2023,’’; 

14 (2) in subsection (b)(3)(D), by inserting ‘‘and 

15 the end of fiscal year 2022,’’ after ‘‘fiscal year 

16 2018,’’; and 

17 (3) in subsection (f)— 

18 (A) in paragraph (1)(A)— 

19 (i) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

20 and inserting a semicolon; 

21 (ii) in clause (v), by striking the pe22 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

23 (iii) by adding at the end the fol24 lowing: 

25 ‘‘(vi) for each of fiscal years 2019 

26 through 2023, $105,000,000.’’; and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5385 RDS 

1 (B) in paragraph (2)— 

2 (i) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

3 ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

4 (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking 

5 the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

6 and’’; and 

7 (iii) by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(F) for each of fiscal years 2019 through 

10 2023, $220,000,000.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32(c)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,



|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.







|/s/ Hugh T. McDonaldHugh T. McDonald
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer 
of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	August 7, 2008
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our report dated March 31, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in
the Annual Report of EF Johnson Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of EF Johnson Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-151999, effective
June 27, 2008; and File No. 333-125257, effective May 26, 2005) and Forms S-8 (File No. 333-129717, effective November 15,
2005; File No. 333-48834, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48836, effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48840
effective October 27, 2000; File No. 333-48880, effective October 27, 2000; and File No. 333-30673, effective July 2, 1997).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLPDallas, Texas
March 31, 2009


---



QuickLinks
**Certification        Pursuant to**

**18        U.S.C. Section 1350**

|   | 1. | the                  Annual Report on Form 10-K of Eagle Broadband, Inc. for the year                  ended                  August 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission                  on                  the date hereof (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                  Eagle                  Broadband, Inc. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES M. MANNING, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv225/LAC/CJK

BRYAN D. MCLEOD, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated April 27, 2012. (Doc. 10). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No

objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation,I have determined that the

Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 3:11-cv-00225-LC-CJK Document 11 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of June, 2012.

th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:11cv225/LAC/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00225-LC-CJK Document 11 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

         STATEMENT RE. COMPUTATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL NET INCOME PER SHARE

                              LARSCOM INCORPORATED

                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
                            NET INCOME PER SHARE(1)

                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                              YEARS ENDED DECEMBER
                                                                                                      31,
                                                                                              --------------------
                                                                                                1996       1995
                                                                                              ---------  ---------
<S>                                                                                           <C>        <C>
Net income..................................................................................  $   4,930  $   2,529
Add: Interest paid net of income tax........................................................        371
                                                                                              ---------  ---------
                                                                                              $   5,301  $   2,529
                                                                                              ---------  ---------
                                                                                              ---------  ---------
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Class A and B Common Stock..................................................................     12,107     11,900
Additional shares that would be used to pay the $25.0 million dividend
  to Axel Johnson(2)........................................................................      2,210      2,293
                                                                                              ---------  ---------
Shares used to compute supplemental net income per share....................................     14,317     14,193
                                                                                              ---------  ---------
                                                                                              ---------  ---------
Supplemental net income per share...........................................................  $    0.37  $    0.18
</TABLE>

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

Note: the Company has not included a computation of supplemental net income per
share for 1994 as the Company does not believe that to do so would be
meaningful.

(1) This Exhibit should be read in conjunction with Note 1 of Notes to
    Consolidated Financial Statements.

(2) Calculated using the assumed net proceeds of $10.90 per share of common
    stock in the Company's Initial Public Offering
#### O’NEAL v. WATKINS

No. 242 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 164.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 August 1981. Motion of plaintiffs to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 17 August 1981.
Page 1 of 2

Cases No. 1:11cr9-RH/GRJ and 1:15cv5-RH/GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASES NO. 1:11cr9-RH/GRJ

1:15cv5-RH/GRJ

FREDDIE LOY WALKER, JR.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION

The defendant has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from his 

judgment of conviction. The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation, ECF No. 152. No objections have been filed. This 

order accepts the report and recommendation and denies the § 2255 motion.

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 

(2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. 
Page 2 of 2

Cases No. 1:11cr9-RH/GRJ and 1:15cv5-RH/GRJ

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a 

§ 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 

issues presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.”

529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4).

The defendant has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The clerk must enter a judgment stating, “The defendant’s motion for 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied.”

2. A certificate of appealability is denied.

SO ORDERED on June 21, 2017.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
NIOSH Respiratory Protective Device Information

 NIOSH CA 2023-1063

 August 2023

 

Effective Immediately: Voluntary Rescission of one Merilogy Inc. Approval
Document Number

NIOSH CA 2023 - 1063

Page 2 of 2

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has honored a request by Merilogy

Inc. to voluntarily rescind one NIOSH respirator approval issued to Merilogy Inc. 

As of August 16, 2023, any respirator marked with a NIOSH approval label with approval number TC84A-9294 is no longer approved by NIOSH. The NIOSH Certified Equipment List no longer includes 

this approval number. 

Due to the voluntary rescission of this NIOSH approval, respirators bearing this NIOSH approval 

number may no longer be used, manufactured, assembled, sold, or distributed.

Please reach out to Merilogy Inc. for additional details related to their decision to voluntarily rescind 

one approval issued to Merilogy Inc. identified in this notice. The Certified Equipment List can be used 

to locate other NIOSH Approved® respirators.

NIOSH Approved® is a certification mark of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) registered in the 

United States and several international jurisdictions

Effective Immediately: Voluntary Rescission of one Merilogy Inc. Approval