alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jaskaran SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73444. Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 25, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Jaskaran Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s independent credibility determination, including those aspects of the IJ’s decision the BIA expressly adopted, under a substantial evidence standard. *See Singh v. INS,*292 F.3d 1017, 1020 (9th Cir.2002). We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

Substantial evidence does not support the adverse credibility findings, stemming from letters about Singh’s father’s mental condition and the political affiliations of some of his acquaintances, because such letters do not go to the heart of Singh’s asylum claim. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*301 F.3d 1109, 1111-1112 (9th Cir.2002). Additionally, the IJ relied on conjecture and speculation to determine there was no nexus between Singh’s activities, affiliations, and conversations, and his arrest; we cannot uphold an adverse credibility determination based on these grounds. *See Singh,*292 F.3d at 1024.

Neither the BIA nor the IJ addressed whether Singh’s testimony, if credible, would be sufficient to establish eligibility for the relief he requests. We therefore remand to the BIA for proceedings consis*663tent with this memorandum. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 356, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7291

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RANDALL WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CR-98-293, CA-01-382-6-24)

Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall White, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Randall White seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by

the district court that White has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. White,

Nos. CR-98-293; CA-01-382-6-24 (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2002). Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46600-46605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18256]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 08-73]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, Transmittal 08-73 with attached transmittal, 
and policy justification.

    Dated: August 1, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 46601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11AU08.010


[[Page 46602]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11AU08.011


[[Page 46603]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11AU08.012


[[Page 46604]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11AU08.013


[[Page 46605]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11AU08.014

 [FR Doc. E8-18256 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
786.5558
Opinion issued March 2, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00014-CV

———————————

IN RE JOYCE REECE AND ZACHARY PETTIT, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Joyce Reece and Zachary Pettit, have filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on 

relators’ plea to the jurisdiction and by granting the motion to disqualify relators’ 

counsel, Joseph R. Willie, II D.D.S., J.D.
2

We deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.1 All pending motions are 

dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Farris.

1 The underlying case is Clarence Roy as next friend of Clarice A. Thomas v. Zachary 

Pettit and Joyce Reece, Cause No. 2017-49867, in the 281st District Court of Harris 

County, Texas, the Honorable Christine Weems presiding.
#### Silas White, Appellant, v. The New York and Ottawa Railway Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Sewell, J., dissenting.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2


                         Consent of Independent Auditors




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-01406 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1993 Non-Qualified and Incentive Stock
Option Plan of Smart Games Interactive, Inc. (known as Sports Sciences, Inc.
prior to merger with and into Smart Games Interactive, Inc, on October 11,
1996) and on Registration Statement No. 333-6458 on Form SB-2 of our report
dated March 24 1997, with respect to the financial statements of Sports Games
Interactive, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year
ended December 31, 1996, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.







                                      SALTZ, SHAMIS & GOLDFARB, INC.



Akron, Ohio
March 31, 1997




                                       42
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, S. Scott Crump,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
that:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|Date: March 9,
      2009 | By: | /s/                           | S. SCOTT CRUMP | 
|------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------- | -------------- | 
|                          |     | S.
      Scott Crump         
|                          |     | Chief
      Executive Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 525 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 525

 To repeal the must-carry provisions of title VI of the Communications 
               Act of 1934, relating to cable television.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 1995

 Mr. Baker of California (for himself, Mr. Hoke, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr. Parker) introduced the following bill; 
            which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the must-carry provisions of title VI of the Communications 
               Act of 1934, relating to cable television.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Sections 614 and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
534, 535), relating to the carriage obligations of cable systems with 
respect to commercial and noncommercial local television stations, are 
repealed.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Retransmission Consent.--Section 325(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``except--'' and all that 
        follows through the period at the end of such paragraph and 
        inserting the following: ``except with the express authority of 
        the originating station.'';
            (2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
                    (A) by striking ``(3)(A)'' and inserting ``(3)''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``and of the right to signal 
                carriage under section 614'';
            (3) by striking paragraphs (3)(B), (4), and (5); and
            (4) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (4).
    (b) Rate Regulation.--Section 623(b)(7) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 
543(b)(7)) is amended--
            (1) by striking clause (i); and
            (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
        and (ii), respectively.
    (c) Judicial Review.--Section 635 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 555) is 
amended by striking subsection (c).
                                 <all>
```
IB

Union Calendar No. 17

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 584

[Report No. 104–35]

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish hatchery to the

State of Iowa.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1995

Mr. LEACH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

FEBRUARY 15, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish

hatchery to the State of Iowa.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT NATIONAL

4 FISH HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF IOWA.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE.—Within 180 days after the date

6 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
2

•HR 584 RH

1 shall convey to the State of Iowa without reimbursement

2 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

3 to the fish hatchery described in subsection (b) for use

4 by the State for purposes of fishery resources manage5 ment.

6 (b) HATCHERY DESCRIBED.—The fish hatchery de7 scribed in subsection (a) is the Fairport National Fish

8 Hatchery located in Muscatine County, Iowa, adjacent to

9 State Highway 22 west of Davenport, Iowa, including all

10 real property, improvements to real property, and personal

11 property.

12 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The prop13 erty conveyed to the State of Iowa pursuant to this section

14 shall be used by the State for purposes of fishery resources

15 management, and if it is used for any other purpose all

16 right, title, and interest in and to all property conveyed

17 pursuant to this section shall revert to the United States.

Union Calendar No. 17

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 584

[Report No. 104–35]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a

fish hatchery to the State of Iowa.

FEBRUARY 15, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         626,828
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,091,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                   43,793
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,042,743
<PP&E>                                         6,034,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,230,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,774,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,171,290
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    313
<COMMON>                                       3,074
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,110,471
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,774,774
<SALES>                                        6,420,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,937,707
<CGS>                                          1,969,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,327,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               902,156
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               220,536
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             240,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,088,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                   721,688
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,366,621
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      (2,769,592)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,527,201)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.55)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-55836 and Registration Statement No. 333-62585 of The Pantry, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our
report dated December 4, 2003, except for Note 20 as to which the date is February 12, 2004, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(SFAS) No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, on September 27, 2002, and the adoption of SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, on September 28, 2001), appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of The Pantry, Inc. for the year ended September 25, 2003.



|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|Deloitte & Touche LLP    



Raleigh, North Carolina

June 29, 2004
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10838 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Joe Lewis Finley,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03

- CR

- 18

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
Joe Lewis Finley , federal prisoner # 30231

- 177, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (First Step Act) . The district court concluded that Finley was eligible for a reduction but exercised its d iscretion and denied the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 4, 2021
Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 20-10838 Document: 00515964925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2021No. 20

- 10838

2 motion “after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including [his] criminal history, public safety issues, offense conduct or relevant conduct, and the post

- sentencing conduct.”
Finley argues that the district court committed a procedural error by failing to adequately explain its reasons for denying him the sentence reduction available to him under the First Step Act. He asserts that the district court’s brief explanation did not provide a re cord to which we could apply meaningful appellate review. However, as Finley concedes, his claim is foreclosed by our caselaw. See United States v. Batiste , 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020 ).
The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
aff irmance and, in the alternative , requests an extension of time to file its
brief. Because Finley concedes that the issue asserted on appeal is foreclosed, summary affirmance is proper. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v.
Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1 969).
Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
**GRANTED** , the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time
to file a brief is **DENIED** , and the judgment of the district court is
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-10838 Document: 00515964925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The undersigned, Scott Gyure, is the Chief Financial Officer of AMB
Financial Corp. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
          78o(d)] 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 covered by the
          Report.

     This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.



January 27, 2006                         /s/ Scott Gyure
                                         -------------------------
Date                                     Scott Gyure
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Q Lotus Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marckensie Theresias, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





The foregoing statement is furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and for no other reason.





/s/ Marckensie Theresias
   May 27, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York v. Hyman Cohen.

Motion granted unless appeal be ready for March term.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-511

In Re: JEROME E. CASSELL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-684)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome E. Cassell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Cassell brought this mandamus petition seeking an order

compelling the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to act on Cassell's motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Because we note that

the district court dismissed without prejudice Cassell's 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (1988) action during the pendancy of this petition, we

conclude that this petition is moot. Accordingly, we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, but deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
SUPREME COUHT 

Or 

NEVADA 

19-17A 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

PILAR ENRIQUE ARBALLO-OLIVAS, No. 83814 

INDIVIDUALLY, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

AMY MARIE AINSWORTH, 

Res • ondent. 

E 

AUG i9 2022 

ELIZABETh A. BROWN 

CLERK OF SUDREM.F. COURT 

BY • 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon an arbitration 

award. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael A. Cherry, 

Judge. 

This appeal was docketed in this court on November 19, 2021. 

After the parties failed to reach a settlement, this court issued an order 

reinstating the deadlines for filing documents. Pursuant to that order, the 

transcript request form was due to be filed by February 22, 2022, and the 

opening brief and appendix were due to be filed by May 9, 2022. Appellant 

failed to timely file the documents. Accordingly, on July 6, 2022, this court 

entered an order directing appellant to file and serve either a transcript 

request form or certificate of no transcript request and the opening brief 

and appendix within 7 days. The order cautioned that failure to comply 

timely could result in dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has failed 

to file the documents or otherwise communicate with this court. 

On July 28, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this 

appeal based on appellant's failure to file the missing documents. On that 

same date, the motion was served electronically upon appellant's counsel. 

Appellant has not responded to the motion to dismiss. This court concludes 
that appellant concedes the merit of respondent's motion. See Foster v. 

Dingwall, 126 Nev. 56, 66, 227 P.3d 1042, 1049 (2010) (stating that this 

court may construe the failure to oppose a motion as an admission that the 

motion is meritorious). Further, it appears that appellant has abandoned 

this appeal. Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

J. 

Silver 

Cadish 

CJ 

Pickering 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. Michael A. Cherry, Senior Justice 

Janet Trost, Settlement Judge 

Desert Ridge Legal Group 

Adam S. Kutner 

The702Firm 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

I,M7A 

2