alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jose Manuel Flores, 

Defendant. 

NO. 17-01879MJ-001 

MATERIAL WITNESS ORDER OF 

DETENTION 

 Defendant, Jose Manuel Flores, having been charged in the District of Arizona 

with a violation of Count One of Title 8 United States Code Section 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) 

and the Magistrate Judge having determined from the affidavit of the Department of 

Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection filed in this case, the following 

persons can provide testimony that is material to the offense(s) alleged in the complaint: 

Karen Lizbeth Escalante-Serrano 

 The Magistrate Judge finds that it may become impracticable to secure the 

presence of the witness by subpoena in further proceedings because they are not in the 

United States legally and have no legal residence or employment in this Country. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the witness shall be detained pursuant to 18 USC ' 3144 in 

a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving 

sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The witness shall be afforded a 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel. 

 Dated this 8th day of November, 2017.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAVINDER KUMAR,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73142 Agency No. A087

- 620

- 484

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016 **

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN , Circuit Judges.

Ravinder Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Conventio n Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

* 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

AUG 5 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 73142

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinat ions
created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies as to Kumar’s visa application, occupation, passports, and
marriage. See i d. at 1 048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under
the “totality of circumstances”). Kumar’s explanations do not compel a contrary

result. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) ( agency not
compelled to accept petitioner ’ s explanation for discrepancy even if plausible)

. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kumar ’s corroborative

evidence did not otherwise establish his eligibility for relief

. See Garcia v

.
Holder
, 749 F.3d 785,791 (9th Cir. 2014)

. Thus, Kumar’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail

. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003)

. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Kumar ’s CAT

claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible , and he does
not point to evidence in the record that compels t he conclusion that it is more likely3 14

- 73142

than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if retu rned to India

. See i d. at 1156

- 57

.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
Case 2:17-mj-07543-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-07543-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-07543-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-07543-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-07543-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 5 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, :

et al., :

:

Petitioners, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 05-1347 (GK) 

 :

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

______________________________:

ORDER

A Status Conference was held in this case on June 11, 2009,

which was closed due to discussion of classified information. Upon

consideration of Petitioner’s Motion for 30-Day Notice [Dkt. No.

191] and Emergency Motion Challenging Protected Information

Designation [Dkt. No. 192], the representations of the parties, and

the entire record herein, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Petitioner’s Motion for 30-Day Notice is denied.

See Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509, 515 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he

requirement that the Government provide pre-transfer notice

interferes with the Executive’s ability to conduct the sensitive

diplomatic negotiations required to arrange safe transfers for

detainees.”); and it is further

ORDERED, that Petitioner’s Emergency Motion is denied without

prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that parties shall report on the status of the case

by July 13, 2009, at 5:00 p.m.; and it is further
-2-

ORDERED, that the Government’s oral Motion for Stay is

granted. The case is stayed until July 14, 2009; and it is further

ORDERED, that a Status Conference shall be held on July 14,

2009, at 10 a.m. 

 /s/ 

June 11, 2009 Gladys Kessler

United States District Judge

Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF
#### Jay WINTERBURN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51270.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 16, 1996.

*388Jarrett Aiken Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and SPINDEN and SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND BULLETTE, III, a/k/a Scrap,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00525-DKC-3; 8:17-cv-03284-

RWT)

Submitted: September 16, 2022 Decided: October 3, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Bullette, III, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6282 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/03/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Bullette, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s renewed order denying 

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate the court’s prior order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

∗

 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see United States v. 

McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bullette has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Bullette’s motion for leave to file 

supplemental informal briefs, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

∗ We previously vacated the district court’s order denying this Rule 60(b) motion 

and remanded so that Bullette could “elect between deleting his successive § 2255 claims 

or having his entire motion treated as a successive § 2255 motion.” United States v. 

Bullette, 816 F. App’x 880, 880 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-6086). Bullette elected to delete 

his successive § 2255 claims.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6282 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/03/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6282 Doc: 18 Filed: 10/03/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6804

KADIM ALI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD LANHAM, as an individual and in his

official capacity as The Commissioner of

Corrections, Address Unknown; LLOYD L. WATERS,

as an individual and in his official capacity

as Warden of Maryland Correctional Institution-Hagerstown; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, as an individual,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-98-1035-WMN)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 18, 1998

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kadim Ali, Appellant Pro Se.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

claim for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Ali v. Lanham, No. CA-98-1035-WMN

(May 5, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Written Resolution of the Compensation Committee, dated September 22, 2006



 Exhibit 10.2 
 WRITTEN RESOLUTION OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE 
 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GSI GROUP INC.

 September 22, 2006 
 The undersigned, being all of the members of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of GSI Group Inc., pursuant to the provisions of the New Brunswick Business Corporations Act and paragraph 18 of By-Law No. 1 of the
Company, hereby authorize and consent to the following actions and adopt the following resolution: 
 RESOLVED: that Sergio
Edelstein’s 70% performance-based opportunity under the GSI 2006 Interim Incentive Program shall be based on the identical performance metrics previously announced for the rest of the GSI executive team participants in the Plan, and that any
such payout to Mr. Edelstein be prorated based upon Mr. Edelstein’s tenure at the Company during 2006. 
  

	
	 /s/ PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS

	Phillip A. Griffiths
	
	 /s/ BYRON O POND

	Byron O. Pond
	
	 /s/ MARINA HATSOPOULOS BORNHORST

	Marina Hatsopoulos Bornhorst
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26222-26223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13118]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-32,025]


Winona Knitting Mills, Inc. Berwick Knitwear (Formerly Komar & 
Sons Berwick Knitwear) Berwick, Pennsylvania; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On April 27, 1996, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice will soon be 
published in the Federal Register.
    Investigation findings show that the workers produced sweaters. The 
workers were denied TAA because the ``contributed importantly'' test of 
the Group Eligibility Requirements of the Trade Act was not met.
    New investigation findings on reconsideration show that the 
articles manufactured by Winona Knitting Mills have been impacted 
importantly by the high penetration of imports into this market. U.S. 
import statistics for men's and boys', and women's and girls' sweaters 
show that the ratio of imports to U.S. shipments was more than 200% in 
both 1994 and 1995.

Conclusion

    After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on 
reconsideration, it is concluded that the workers of Winona Knitting 
Mills, Inc. of Berwick, Pennsylvania were adversely affected by 
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
sweaters produced at the subject firm.

    ``All workers of Winona Knitting Mills, Inc., Berwick Knitwear, 
Formerly Komar & Sons Berwick Knitwear, Berwick

[[Page 26223]]

Pennsylvania who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after February 26, 1995 are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of May 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-13118 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12977]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ID-957-1430-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plats of the following described land were officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m. May 14, 1996.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
subdivisional lines and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 24, T. 6 
N., R. 35 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group No. 923, was accepted, May 
14, 1996.
    The plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of 
portions of the west and north boundaries, and subdivisional lines, and 
a metes-and bounds survey in sections 3, 10, 15, 19, 20, 21, and 22, T. 
6 N., R. 36 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group No. 923, was accepted, May 
14, 1996.
    These surveys were executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the Bureau of Land Management. All inquiries concerning the survey of 
the above described land must be sent to the Chief, Cadastral Survey, 
Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3380 Americana Terrace, 
Boise, Idaho, 83706-2500.

    Dated: May 14, 1996.
Duane E. Olsen,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 96-12977 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com


QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
 

  First Amendment
  of
  FMC Corporation Non-Qualified Savings and Investment Plan
       (As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2000)
 



    WHEREAS, FMC Corporation (the "Company") maintains the FMC Corporation Non-Qualified Savings and
Investment Plan (the "Plan") and administers the Plan through the FMC Corporation Employee Welfare Benefits Plan Committee (the "Committee"); and 


    WHEREAS, the Plan has previously been amended, most recently in the form of an amendment and restatement effective as of
January 1, 2000, and the Company now considers it desirable to amend the Plan further; 


    NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority reserved to the Committee by Article IX of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended
effective as of January 1, 2000 as follows: 


    1.  Section 6.1  Deemed Investments is hereby amended by adding the following as the last sentence
of Subsection (a) thereof: 



    "Notwithstanding
anything herein to the contrary, a Participant who is subject to Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act may not transfer any Deferral Contribution or any
corresponding Matching Contribution ("Section 16 Officer") out of the Company Stock Permitted Investment for at least six months after the date such Deferral Contribution and any corresponding
Matching Contribution is made in the Company Stock Permitted Investment." 




    2.  Section 8.2  Payment of Account Balances is hereby amended for clarification purposes by
adding the following as the first sentence of Subsection (a) thereof: "All payments under this Plan shall be made in cash."; and, by adding the following to the end of the first sentence of
Subsection (b) thereof: ";provided, however, that a Participant may not elect to receive a distribution in Company Stock instead of cash." 


    3.  Section 8.4  Payments in the Event of Unforeseeable Emergency is hereby amended for
clarification purposes by adding the following as the last sentence thereof: 



    "Notwithstanding
anything herein to the contrary, a Participant may not receive an emergency payment of any Deferral Contribution or any corresponding Matching Contribution made to
the Company Stock
Permitted Investment if such Deferral Contribution and any corresponding Matching Contribution was not made to the Company Stock Permitted Investment at least six months before the date of such
Participant's request to receive an emergency payment." 




    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned member of the Committee has executed the foregoing amendment on behalf of the Company and the Committee on this 20th day of November, 2000. 



	 	 	FMC CORPORATION
	 

 	 
 	 
 By:	 

/s/ STEPHEN F. GATES   
Member, FMC Corporation Employee Welfare Benefits Plan Committee










QuickLinks


First Amendment of FMC Corporation Non-Qualified Savings and Investment Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2000)
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, James G. Azlein, certify that:1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BPI Energy Holdings, Inc.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date March 17, 2008              /s/ James G. Azlein   By: James G. Azlein   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer  
32
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 445 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 445

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 14, 2009.
Whereas Orville and Wilbur Wright secured the patent for their powered airplane 
        in 1906, affording them the opportunity to compete for contracts with 
        the Army;
Whereas the United States Army Signal Corps made its first purchase of an 
        airplane, the Wright Military Flyer, in 1909 at a cost of $30,000;
Whereas the Wright Military Flyer carried a passenger over a distance of 125 
        miles;
Whereas today's military aircraft can travel around the world without landing;
Whereas the importance of military aviation and air superiority in battle was 
        first demonstrated in World War I;
Whereas, during World War II, United States Naval aviation was decisive in 
        reversing the Japanese advance and winning the war in the Pacific;
Whereas United States Army Air Corps played a crucial role in executing 
        strategic bombing campaigns in both the European and Pacific theaters;
Whereas the National Security Act of 1947 established the United States Army Air 
        Corps as a separate military branch, the United States Air Force;
Whereas the Vietnam War brought about new, more modern fighter jets and bombers, 
        including the F-105 Thunderchief and the F-4 Phantom;
Whereas military aviators continue to provide invaluable offensive, defensive, 
        logistical, and intelligence support to the Armed Forces;
Whereas military aviators have been on the front lines of combat and 
        humanitarian missions in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas the increase in technology over the last century has made military 
        aircraft an essential component in the safety and security of the United 
        States homeland; and
Whereas the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution will 
        commemorate the centennial of military aviation with programs and 
        exhibits throughout 2009: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 100 years of military 
aviation and expresses its continued support for military aviators of the United 
States Armed Forces.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```