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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7757

EDDIE LEE MUMFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PAUL DAVIS, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-1404-DKC)

Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Lee Mumford, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Susan Lynn Howe, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Mumford appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). Mumford alleged that there has been a change in

the way that the Maryland Parole Commission computes his eligibility for parole review, and that the change violates the Ex Post

Facto Clause of the Constitution. We conclude that, assuming

Mumford’s factual allegations to be true, they do not constitute a

“sufficient risk” of increasing the punishment attached to the

crime. California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499,

509 (1995). Mumford cannot show with assurance that he would have

received parole under the old system, but only that he missed an

opportunity to be evaluated for earlier release. Therefore, the

change is not an Ex Post Facto violation. Roller v. Gunn, 107 F.3d

227, 237 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3260

(U.S., Oct. 6, 1997) (No. 97-5072).

We affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment in

this action. 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
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT      

Osmonics, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements 
No. 33-25228 and No. 33-537 of Osmonics, Inc. on Forms S-3 and S-8 of 
our report dated October 22, 1996 appearing in this Quarterly Report 
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996, which includes 
in Item 5, the consolidatred balance sheet of Osmonics, Inc. as of 
December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the related consolidated statements 
of income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each 
of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1995 which have been 
adjusted to reflect the pooling of interest of Osmonics, Inc. and Desalination
Systems.


/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP
     Deloitte & Touche LLP

     Minneapolis, Minnesota
     October 22, 1996
#### In the Matter of Ward B. Yeomans.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6175 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6175

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 135 West Wisconsin Street in Russell, Kansas, as the ``Robert J. 
                 Dole Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2021

   Mr. Mann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 135 West Wisconsin Street in Russell, Kansas, as the ``Robert J. 
                 Dole Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT J. DOLE MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 135 West Wisconsin Street in Russell, Kansas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Robert J. Dole Memorial Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert J. 
Dole Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1126

EMMANUEL OGBONNAYA NWANKWO,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: July 12, 2011 Decided: August 24, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Ogbonnaya Nwankwo, Petitioner Pro Se. Kiley L. Kane, 

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:

Emmanuel Ogbonnaya Nwankwo, a native and citizen of 

Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision denying Nwankwo’s request for a 

continuance, pretermitting his request for a § 212(c) waiver of 

inadmissibility,*

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack 

jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) 

(2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is 

removable for having been convicted of certain enumerated 

crimes, including a controlled substance violation. Because 

Nwankwo conceded before the immigration court that he is an 

alien who was found removable for having been convicted of a

controlled substance violation, a concession which he does not 

challenge on appeal, our review is limited to “constitutional 

claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); 

Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).

and ordering his removal to Nigeria. For the 

reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for review.

We have thoroughly reviewed Nwankwo’s informal brief 

and the administrative record and conclude we are without 

jurisdiction to consider Nwankwo’s claims. Nwankwo failed to 

 * See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994) (repealed 1996).
3

exhaust his administrative remedies by presenting his claims on 

appeal to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); 

Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We 

also find that he failed to raise a colorable constitutional 

claim or question of law that would fall within the exception 

set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 

516 F.3d 35, 40-41 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that a criminal alien 

must raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law 

in order for a federal appellate court to have jurisdiction 

under § 1252(a)(2)(D)).

We therefore dismiss the petition for review. 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 DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of the President 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 China RuiTai International Holdings Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dian Min Ma, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.  /s/ Dian Min MaChief Executive Officer Date: November 13, 2007
#### Cecil E. Baker v. State.

No. 24693.

March 8, 1950.

*William C. McDonald,*San Angelo, *for*appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of possession of whiskey, gin and beer in a dry area for the purpose of sale. The jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at a fine of one hundred dollars and thirty days in jail.

Officers searched two barns or outhouses located to the rear of a vacant house some 100 yards south of the Brownfield Highway in Lubbock County, stipulated to be a dry area.

There was a driveway leading from said highway passing the house and on by the barns or outhouses to another street, which driveway showed to have been used for travel by motor vehicles.

The officers testified that they searched the two outhouses and found in each a large quantity of whiskey, gin and beer, all of which was under lock. Some of the officers then barricaded the passage way at a point past the outhouses and laid in wait for someone to come to the liquor.

*341Soon appellant drove up to the barn and, leaving his car in said driveway a few feet from one of the barns, walked toward such building.

He was immediately placed under arrest by the officers.

No liquor was found in the car or on the person of appellant, and the keys to the locks on the bams were not found as a result of the officers’ search therefor. Other keys were found on appellant’s person, and the officers tried them on the locks, but none would fit.

Two deeds were taken from the glove compartment of appellant’s car, but neither deed described the premises where the liquor was found.

This was the proof relied upon to show appellant’s possession of the liquor found.

In the absence of evidence in the record sufficient to show that appellant had some character of ownership, possession or control of the vacant house or barns, or of the liquor therein found, we sustain appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
exhibti_4-10.htm










Exhibit 4.10


 


English Summary of the Line of Credit Agreement, dated October 6, 2013, between R.V.B. Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”), as lender, and E.E.R. Environmental Energy Resources (Israel) Ltd. (the “EER”), as borrower (the “Loan”).


 


Term of the Agreement: The Agreement shall be effective as of September 11, 2013, and shall end upon full repayment of the Loan.


 


Loan Amount: The Company shall provide EER with a credit line in the amount of NIS 1 million (the “Loan”). Each withdrawal by EER shall be in the amount of up to NIS 200 thousand. The Company may refuse at any time and upon its sole discretion to approve such withdrawal.


 


Interest and Linkage: The Loan will bear no interest and will be linked to the Israeli Consumer Price Index.


 


Repayment: The Loan shall be repaid in full in one payment following six months from the effective date of the Agreement. EER is entitled at any stage to early repayment of the Loan without any early repayment fee.


 


Immediate Repayment: The Company may be entitled, upon its sole discretion, to call for an immediate repayment of the Loan upon the following:


 



	
  

	
1.

	
A breach by EER of its obligations under the Agreement and/or if any of its declarations under the Agreement shall be deemed to be not true.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
In case a liquidation order has been issued against EER or that EER’s name has been deleted from any registry conducted by law, and these where not canceled within 30 days.







 



	
  

	
3.

	
If a request to appoint a receiver or a special manager for EER or for EER’s assets or a substantial part of its assets was filed and was not canceled within 30 days, or if a receiver shall be appointed or a receivership order was issued and was not cancelled within 30 days, or if a trustee or a special manager is appointed for EER or its assets.







 



	
  

	
4.

	
If an attachment is imposed or a similar execution action has been filed against material assets of EER or against a security granted to the Company by EER and such actions were not canceled within 30 days.







 



	
  

	
5.

	
If a stay of proceeding or creditor settlement requests were filed for EER and not canceled within 30 days, or if a stay of proceeding or a creditor settlement order were issued.







 



	
  

	
6.

	
If EER shall be liquidated or dissolved for any reason.







 



	
  

	
7.

	
If EER fails to repay material debts to others or if such debts shall be called for immediate repayment.







 



	
  

	
8.

	
If legal actions shall be taken against EER and the Company shall determine that such actions may jeopardize EER’s ability to repay the Loans.
Exhibit 13.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
year ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Alok MisraName:
    Alok MisraTitle:
    Group Chief Financial Officer
#### City of Rochester, Respondent, v. Macauley-Fien Milling Company, Appellant.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal

to Court of Appeals granted.
#### Ray Whatley v. State.

No. 24604.

January 18, 1950.

*170
      *Enoch G. Fletcher,*Grand Saline, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed by the jury at a fine of $250 and imprisonment in jail for six months.

The state proved that Van Zandt County was a dry area and that appellant was caught in said county in possession of one pint of whiskey.

There was no evidence offered to prove that appellant possessed such whiskey for the purpose of sale, and the amount of whiskey he possessed was not sufficient to raise the presumption that it was possessed for the purpose of sale.

The evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, as properly confessed by the state attorney.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
|   | **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 Annual Report of LILM, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the (Report(), I, **George I. Norman, III**, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.            Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

| /s/ | **GEORGEI.NORMAN,III** |
|-----|------------------------|

**George I. Norman, III**

Principal Accounting Officer

March 31, 2010

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or            its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 11378 and # 11379]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Indiana dated 08/15/2008. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storm Flooding and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         08/04/2008. *Effective Date:*
                         08/15/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/14/2008. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/15/2009.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Lake. *Contiguous Counties:* Illinois:  Cook, Kankakee, Will. Indiana: Jasper, Newton, Porter. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11378 C and for economic injury is 11379 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Indiana, Illinois. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: August 15, 2008. Jovita Carranza, Acting Administrator.


[FR Doc. E8-19370 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### CASH v. UNITED MUT. LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF AMERICA.

No. 17098.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 30, 1941.

Appellant unrepresented.

Guy J. D’Antonio, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Heloise Cash, widow of Edward Cash, sued the United Mutual Life Assurance Society of America for $1,000 on two life insurance policies. She later filed a supplemental ■ and amended petition stating that the correct name of the defendant was “United Mutual Assurance Society of America” and she prayed for judgment against it.

The United Mutual Assurance Society of America appeared and filed exceptions of no cause or right of action and of prematurity, which were overruled, and it then filed its answer.

After a trial on the merits a judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $1,-000 and against the “United Mutual Assurance *Company*of America”. From that judgment an appeal was taken to this court by the “United Mutual Assurance *Society*of America”. The plaintiff filed an answer tp the appeal in which she averred “that through inadvertance or error judgment was rendered in the District Court against United Mutual Assurance Company of America, instead of against United Mutual Assurance Society of America”. She prayed that “the judgment appealed from be amended by substituting for the name, ‘United Mutual Assurance Company of America’, the name ‘United Mutual Assurance Society of America’, as the proper name of said defendant; * * *”, and that, as thus amended, the judgment be affirmed.

When the case was called for argument in this court, plaintiff-appellee alone was represented and no brief had been filed by defendant-appellant. At that time counsel for plaintiff asked that the judgment appealed from be corrected and, as corrected, that it be affirmed under Rule VII of this court.

There being no dispute or contention about the matter, and it appearing that plaintiff is entitled to the relief asked for, *221it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from he and it is amended by substituting for the name, “United Mutual Assurance Company of America”, the name “United Mutual Assurance Society of America” as the party cast by the judgment, and, as thus amended, affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.
#### I. N. McNutt v. State.

No. 24596

January 11, 1950

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record is before us without bills of exception. The facts show that appellant was found in possession of four pints of whisky in Hockley County, a dry area.

This was sufficient, under the prima-facie-evidence rule, to authorize the jury to conclude that the whisky was possessed for the purpose of sale.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Filed 11/9/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 208

In the Interest of Keith Michael Disbrow

State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

Keith Michael Disbrow, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20100028

Appeal from the District Court of Walsh County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable M. Richard Geiger, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Barbara L. Whelan, State’s Attorney, 600 Cooper Avenue, 3rd Floor, Grafton, N.D. 58237, for petitioner and appellee.

Troy Robert Morley, 218 South 3rd Street, Grand Forks, N.D. 58201, for respondent and appellant.

Interest of Disbrow

No. 20100028

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Keith Disbrow appealed from a district court order committing him as a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.  Disbrow argues (1) the district court erred in finding he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior and (2) he has not exhibited sexually deviant behavior warranting civil commitment under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).  

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner