alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60284

Summary Calendar

NELSON JAVIER GARCIA-RIVERA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A099 672 593

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In June 2006, an immigration judge (IJ) entered an in absentia order

removing Nelson Javier Garcia-Rivera to his native El Salvador. More than five

years later, Garcia-Rivera moved to rescind the removal order and reopen his

immigration proceedings. The IJ denied the motion, and the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Garcia-Rivera’s appeal and denied his

motion to remand his case to the IJ. Garcia-Rivera now petitions for review of

the BIA’s decision.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 15, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-60284 Document: 00512242657 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2013
No. 12-60284

In his petition for review, Garcia-Rivera asserts that the 180-day deadline

for filing a motion to reopen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) should be

equitably tolled based on his assertions that he received ineffective assistance

of counsel and that he had been defrauded by a California notary. In this circuit,

such an argument is construed as a challenge to the BIA’s refusal to exercise its

discretion to sua sponte reopen the proceeding under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See

Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,

we lack jurisdiction to review this purely discretionary decision. Id.

Garcia-Rivera also reiterates his contention that he was not properly

served with the notice to appear (NTA) because he lacked the mental stability

to comprehend the contents of the NTA. The record contains evidence that

Garcia-Rivera received both oral and written notice of his immigration hearing

and the consequences of failing to appear for that hearing as required by 8

U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). There is also evidence that the oral notice was given in

Spanish and that Garcia-Rivera stated to the Border Patrol agent that he

understood the notice. Garcia-Rivera has not shown that the BIA abused its

discretion in determining that reopening was not warranted under

§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). See Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir.

2009).

The petition filed by Garcia-Rivera does not include any challenge to the

BIA’s denial of his motion to remand, its determination that his motion to reopen

was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), or its determination that he had

not shown a change in country conditions that warranted reopening under

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). He has thus waived those issues. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380

F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART.

2

 Case: 12-60284 Document: 00512242657 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2013
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25667]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting

DATES AND TIMES: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, at 10 a.m.; and Wednesday, 
October 20, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.

PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

Tuesday, October 19, at 10 a.m. (Closed)

    1. Strategic Issues.
    2. Pricing.
    3. Financial Matters.
    4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
    5. Governors' Executive Session--Discussion of prior agenda items 
and Board Governance.

Wednesday, October 20, at 8:30 a.m. (Closed)--if needed Continuation of 
Tuesday's agenda.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the 
Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25667 Filed 10-7-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25782]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


SES Performance Review Board--Appointment of Members

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the 
Performance Review Board of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa M. Williams, Chief Human Capital 
Officer, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, 
NE., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of the Performance Review Board 
(PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews 
and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance 
by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chair, EEOC, with 
respect to performance ratings, pay level adjustments and performance 
awards.
    The following are the names and titles of executives appointed to 
serve as members of the SES PRB. Members will serve a 12-month term, 
which begins on October 4, 2010.
    PRE Chair: Mr. James Neely, Director St. Louis District Office, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
    Members:

Ms. Gwendolyn Reams, Associate General Counsel, Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission;
Ms. Deidre Flippen, Director for Research, Information and Planning, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
Mr. John Rowe, Director, Chicago District Office, Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission;
Ms. Tracey Sasser, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Education;
Ms. Linda Cruciani, Deputy General Counsel for Operations, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development.

    Alternate: Mr. Michael Baldonado, Director, San Francisco District 
Office, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    Dated: October 6, 2010.
Jacqeline A. Berrien,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2010-25782 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7943

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHNNIE ELVIN MCKELVEY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (2:02-cr-00516-DCN-1; 2:09-cv-70080-DCN) 

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009 

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Johnnie Elvin McKelvey, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas 

Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Johnnie Elvin McKelvey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

McKelvey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ViewCast.com, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and intenal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:      May 14, 2009
    /s/  David T. StonerDavid T. StonerChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,692,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               92,055,415
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,804,245)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,120,181
<PP&E>                                       4,582,257
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,831,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,815,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       63,761,711
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       15,997,410
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,615
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,020,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,815,023
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,891,150
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,687,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               400,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,426,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                376,718
<INCOME-TAX>                                   175,179
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   201,539
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06


</TABLE>
#### Nathaniel C. McCLAIN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 1D10-2262.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 3, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 2011.

*1052Nathaniel C. McClain, pro se, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel C. McClain, an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, challenges the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We agree with appellant that the trial court was obligated to allow appellant to file a reply to the response filed below by the Florida Parole Commission, appellee. *See Bard v. Wolson,*687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Because the appellant’s petition below did not state a basis for relief, *see Lopez v. Florida Parole Comm’n.,*943 So.2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), however, a show cause order should not have issued below. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, AND THOMAS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7159 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7159

 To clarify the rights of not-for-profit religious employers under the 
                     National Labor Relations Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2018

 Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida (for himself and Mr. Rokita) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                           and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify the rights of not-for-profit religious employers under the 
                     National Labor Relations Act.

    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 ``Freedom For Religious Communities 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or any not-for-profit 
        religious organization,'' after ``subdivision thereof,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(15) The term `not-for-profit religious organization' 
        means--
                    ``(A) any church, religious corporation, 
                ecclesiastical corporation, corporation sole, non-
                profit corporation, unincorporated association, 
                foundation, or other entity that is organized for 
                religious purposes or carries out religious activities 
                and is exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
                Revenue Code of 1986; or
                    ``(B) any not-for-profit entity affiliated with, or 
                owned, operated, or controlled, directly or indirectly, 
                by a recognized religious organization, or with an 
                entity, membership of which is determined, at least in 
                part, with reference to religion, and that is exempt 
                under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
                Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Larry LITTLE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-2800.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 12, 2010.

Larry Little, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Stroup, Executive Secretary, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12C-06, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 443-1127.

Dated: October 6, 2010.

Wendy Ponton,

Director, Office of Management.

[FR Doc. 2010-25646 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1993-D,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1,046
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,745
<PP&E>                                         3,489,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,038,450)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,456,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,124
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,452,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,456,429
<SALES>                                        310,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               310,128
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,282<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                77,023
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            77,023
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   77,023
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ,

Appellant,

v.

ALBERTO ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ,

and REYNALDO AARON MORALES,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§ No.08

- 19

- 00276

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. Three

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2018

- CCV

- 01804)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes

no oth er order with respect thereto. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafo x, and Alley, JJ.
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


December 8, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2099


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2099 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-259544 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 27, 2017

p0619

Order 

Clerk

June 27, 2017

154443

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154443

COA: 325107

Wayne CC: 14-002709-FC

DANTRAZ JAVON OLIVER-McCLUNG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.