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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1875

BLEMA DEKU,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. (A72-379-761)

Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: June 9, 2004

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S.

Wendtland, Assistant Director, Danielle Franco, Office of

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Blema Deku, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have

reviewed the record and the BIA’s order and find that the BIA did

not abuse its discretion in denying Deku’s motion to reopen. See

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24

(1992). Moreover, despite Deku’s urgings, we do not have

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order affirming without opinion

the immigration judge’s decision denying Deku’s applications for

asylum and withholding from removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6)

(2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the BIA’s

reasoning. See In re: Deku, No. A72-379-761 (BIA June 30, 2003).

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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60843 Summary Calendar

EMILIO RODRIGUEZ-HERNANDEZ Petitioner

v. PETER D KEISLER, ACTING US ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A90 373 219
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Emilio Rodriguez-Hernandez petitions this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision granting the respondent’s motion to pretermit RodriguezHernandez’s request for a waiver of removal pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and ordering Rodriguez-Hernandez removed from the United States. Rodriguez-Hernandez contends that the BIA erred by determining that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-60843

2 he was ineligible for relief pursuant to § 1182(c). The respondent moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief. Rodriguez-Hernandez has not shown error in connection with the BIA’s determination that he had failed to establish his status as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n.6 (1984). He has concomitantly failed to carry his burden of showing that he is eligible for relief under former § 1182(c). SeeVo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363, 366- 70 (5th Cir. 2007); see al so Ashby v. INS , 961 F.2d 555, 557 (5th Cir. 1992). Rodriguez-Hernandez’s petition for reviewis D ENIED. The respondent’s motion is likewise DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1431

NADER MODANLO,

Claimant - Appellant,

v.

CHERYL E. ROSE,

Trustee - Appellee,

and

FINAL ANALYSIS, INCORPORATED,

Debtor.

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

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-02544-PWG)

Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nader Modanlo, Appellant Pro Se. James Martin Hoffman, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, 

Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nader Modanlo appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing his appeal 

from the bankruptcy court’s order approving a final application for attorney’s fees, and (2)

denying Modanlo’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have 

reviewed the record included on appeal and the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Modanlo v. Rose, 

No. 8:17-cv-02544-PWG (D. Md. July 2, 2018; Mar. 20, 2019). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 64276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26275]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1712]


Reorganization/Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 196 Under 
Alternative Site Framework Fort Worth, TX

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) in 
December 2008 (74 FR 1170, 01/12/09; correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09) 
as an option for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose 
zones;
    Whereas, the Alliance Corridor, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 
196, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket 18-2010, filed 
3/16/2010) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service 
area that includes the Alliance Corridor area of Denton and Tarrant 
Counties, Texas, adjacent to the Alliance Customs and Border Protection 
user fee airport, FTZ 196's existing Sites 1-4 would be categorized as 
magnet sites and the grantee proposes an initial usage-driven site 
(Site 5);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (75 FR 14127-14128, 3/24/2010) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 196 under the alternative site 
framework is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28, to the Board's standard 2,000-
acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project, to 
a five-year ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate 
authority for Sites 2, 3 and 4 if not activated by October 31, 2015, 
and to a three-year ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites that 
would terminate authority for Site 5 if no foreign-status merchandise 
is admitted for a bona fide customs purpose by October 31, 2013.

    Signed at Washington, DC, October 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-26275 Filed 10-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### SAMUEL GEORGE BIBBY v. CHRISTOPHER DIETZ, ET AL.

November 21, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
#### SHESTON OIL COMPANY, INC. v. BOROUGH OF AVALON PLANNING BOARD.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 214 *N.J.Super.*593)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          43,855
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               224,696
<PP&E>                                         651,802
<DEPRECIATION>                                 466,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 652,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,203,467
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        498
<COMMON>                                       274,141
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,551,246)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   652,221
<SALES>                                        357,930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,930
<CGS>                                            (835)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    (835)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               335,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,244
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,244
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,244
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.00
        

</TABLE>
|                 
|-----------------
|Journal Home Page

# The Apollo Flight Journal

## Ejectable camera pods

### Wes Oleszewski

##### © 2019 Wes Oleszewski. All rights reserved.



















































|                 
|-----------------
|Journal Home Page
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT LONDON.

April 7, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
IV 

House Calendar No. 33 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 241 

[Report No. 115–76] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1304) to amend the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service 

Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the definition of health insurance coverage certain medical stop-loss insurance 

obtained by certain plan sponsors of group health plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2017 

Mr. BYRNE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1304) to amend 

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 

the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 to exclude from the definition of health 

insurance coverage certain medical stop-loss insurance 

obtained by certain plan sponsors of group health plans. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 1304) to amend the Employee Retirement Income SecuVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:56 Apr 03, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR241.RH HR241

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 241 RH 

1 rity Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the 

2 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the defini3 tion of health insurance coverage certain medical stop-loss 

4 insurance obtained by certain plan sponsors of group 

5 health plans. All points of order against consideration of 

6 the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a 

7 substitute recommended by the Committee on Education 

8 and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be consid9 ered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered 

10 as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 

11 as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 

12 considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 

13 further amendment thereto, to final passage without inter14 vening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally di15 vided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

16 member of the Committee on Education and the Work17 force; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without in18 structions. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 33 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 241 

[Report No. 115–76] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1304) 

plans. tained by certain plan sponsors of group health erage certain medical stop-loss insurance obclude from the definition of health insurance covand the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exrity Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, to amend the Employee Retirement Income SecuAPRIL 3, 2017 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Chad Steelberg, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Veritone, Inc.; and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: April 29, 2020 |   |   | /s/ Chad Steelberg                           |
|----------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |   | Chad Steelberg                                    |
|                 |   |   | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board |
|                 |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                     |
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 367

EX PA R TE JASO N D EW A Y N E L I V EL Y , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 2 9 3 1 5 - B I N T HE 3 r d DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM AND ERS ON CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u an t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applican t wa s co n v icted of two c ounts of int oxic a tio n ma

ns la ug hte r a nd tw o c ounts of

int oxic a tio n a ssa

ult
. He wa s se nte nc e d to tw e nty y e a rs ’ imprisonment on eac h of the intox ication manslaug hter c ounts and ten y ear s’ imprisonment on eac h of the intox ication assault counts
. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th a t his c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e be c a us e he fai led to timely file a notice of appea l. We r emande d this a pplication to the trial court f or finding s of fa ct and2

conclusions of law
. T h e tr ia l c o u rt h a s d e te r

mi n e d th a t t r ia l c o u n s e l f

a il e d to ti me ly f

il e a n o ti c e o f

a p p e a l. We find, t h erefore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-time appe al of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. 29315-B from the 3rd J udi ci al District Court of Ander son County . Applicant is order ed re turned to t hat t ime at which he may g ive a wr itten notice of a ppeal so that he may

then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a mea ningf ul appea l. All tim e limits shall be
c a lc ulate d a s if

the se nte nc e ha d b e e n im

po se d o n th e date on

wh ic h the mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s. We h old that, s ho uld Ap pli c ant de sir e to pr os e c ute an ap pe a l, he mus t tak e a ff ir ma tiv e ste ps to f

ile
a wr itt e n n oti c e of

a pp e a l in the tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n 3 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: J une 30, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh
EXHIBIT 31.2Cronos Global Income Fund XIV, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION     I, John Kallas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cronos Global Income Fund XIV, L.P.(the “Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007/s/ JOHN KALLAS
# Sitemap

## December 01, 1997

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1997
- 12
- December 01, 1997

            - December 1997 – South Pole TDRSS Relay (SPTR) Installed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,770
<SECURITIES>                                     2,150
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (306)
<INVENTORY>                                     29,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,164
<PP&E>                                          95,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,245)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,495
<BONDS>                                          5,851
<COMMON>                                           162
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,796
<SALES>                                         18,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,724
<CGS>                                           14,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    148
<INCOME-TAX>                                       138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 10
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        10
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JERRY D. THOMAS.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.