alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cedric Togba BOBOY, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-60147.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Jan. 13, 2005.

Paul S. Zoltán, Law Office of Paul S. Zoltán, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Michael Peter Lindemann, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Douglas Ginsburg, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Caryl G. Thompson, Washington, DC, Room T8011, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service District Directors, Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Cedric Togba Boboy, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Boboy also seeks the appointment of counsel. As Boboy has since obtained private counsel, his motion is DENIED as moot.

In rejecting Boboy’s appeal, the BIA adopted the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) findings that Boboy lacked credibility. We hold that the IJ’s credibility findings were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. *See Chun v. INS,*40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, Boboy’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                         9
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                               18,422
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                   10
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                      3,096
<TRADING-ASSETS>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>         530,588
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>               33,998
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      0
<LOANS>                             675,986
<ALLOWANCE>                          (6,842)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,306,441
<DEPOSITS>                          963,274
<SHORT-TERM>                         29,838
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                   2,442
<LONG-TERM>                         212,117
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              4,561
<OTHER-SE>                           91,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>    1,306,441
<INTEREST-LOAN>                      37,049
<INTEREST-INVEST>                    26,271
<INTEREST-OTHER>                        269
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                     63,589
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                   26,782
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   36,517
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                27,072
<LOAN-LOSSES>                            75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     (164)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                      14,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      15,414
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>           15,414
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          9,853
<EPS-BASIC>                            1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                          1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            0
<LOANS-NON>                             826
<LOANS-PAST>                              0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                          0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                      6,779
<CHARGE-OFFS>                            58
<RECOVERIES>                             46
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                     6,842
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                   0




</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 BLACKWATER MIDSTREAM CORP. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended MARCH 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,
Michael D. Suder, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated:  July 15, 2008.

                                                   /s/ MICHAEL D. SUDER
                                                   --------------------
                                                   Michael D. Suder
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
Comments template for Draft SP 800-207 Please respond by November 22, 2019 Submitted by: IDSA 

Date: 11/21/19 

All comments will be made public as-is, with no edits or redactions. Please be careful to not include confidential business or personal information, otherwise sensitive or 

protected information, or any information you do not wish to be posted. 

Submit comments by October 15, 2020 to: Comment Template for First Public Draft of Four explainable-AI@nist.gov Principles of Explainable Artificial Intelligence 

(Draft NISTIR 8312) 

Comment # Commenter 

organization 

Commenter 

name 

Paper Line # (if 

applicable) 

Paper 

Section (if 

applicable) 

Comment (Include rationale for 

comment) 

Suggested change 

W3C AI KR CG Paola Di Maio 

Thank you for the opportunity to 

provide feedback onf the draft 

principles for X 

I paste below and attach as text 

some comments, which I would be 

grateful if they could be 

taken into account and possibly 

addressed. Looking forward to the 

standard for explainability 

Best regards 

Paola Di Maio, PhD 

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

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

FEEDBACK FOR NIST ON 

EXPLAINABILITY 

Draft NIST IR 8312 

from PAOLA DI MAIO, Expert and Cochair W3C AI KR CG 

13 October 2020 1. using consistent naming conventions 

2. Ensuring principles are not merely 

attributes/qualifiers 

Type: E - Editorial, G - General T - Technical 1 of 2 
 

 

 

 

Comments template for Draft SP 800-207 Please respond by November 22, 2019 Submitted by: IDSA 

Date: 11/21/19 

3. ensuring explainability is understood and explained 

with more accuracy 

Type: E - Editorial, G - General T - Technical 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27674]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Resource-Related Research 
Project (R24).
    Date: December 15, 2014.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 5601 Fishers Lane 3F100, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Robert C. Unfer, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers 
Lane Room 3F40A, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-3775, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a6f747c7f6868795a747372347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9ccd7dfdccbcbdaf9d7d0d197ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

     Dated: November 17, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-27674 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                            AURORA ELECTRONICS, INC.
 
   STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
                           PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    1997 AND
                                                  DECEMBER 29,
                                                      1996                    THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                -----------------   -------------------------------------------------
                                                 1997      1996       1997       1996       1995      1994      1993    PRO FORMA
                                                -------   -------   --------   --------   --------   -------   ------   ---------
                                                   (UNAUDITED)
<S>                                             <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>      <C>
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
  CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
  before taxes................................  $(5,002)  $(2,316)  $(49,072)  $(27,047)  $(13,710)  $(4,118)  $2,505   $(70,434)
Plus total fixed charges......................    1,920     1,673      7,142      7,763                4,449    1,276      2,693
                                                -------   -------   --------   --------   --------   -------   ------   --------
Earnings plus fixed charges...................   (3,082)     (643)   (41,930)   (19,284)   (13,710)      331    3,781    (67,741)
Fixed charges:
Interest expense..............................    1,036       901      4,050      6,221      5,522     4,449    1,276      1,202
Amortization of debt issue costs..............       26        26        102         51
Amortization of debt discount.................       46        46        168         91
Preferred stock dividend requirement..........      812       700      2,822      1,400                                    1,491
Taxes related to dividend requirement.........       --        --         --         --
                                                -------   -------   --------   --------   --------   -------   ------   --------
Total fixed charges and preferred stock
  dividends...................................  $ 1,920   $ 1,673   $  7,142   $  7,763   $  5,522   $ 4,449   $1,276   $  2,693
                                                =======   =======   ========   ========   ========   =======   ======   ========
Ratio (* = less than 1:1).....................        *         *          *          *          *         *     2.96          *
Coverage deficiency...........................  $ 5,002   $ 2,316   $ 49,072   $ 27,047   $ 19,232   $ 4,118      n/a   $ 70,434
</TABLE>
 
                                       11
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

January 14, 2015

Will W. Pierson

Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams

8200 IH 10 West, Ste. 610

San Antonio, TX 78230

Gregory W. Marcum

Kroger Frisby

3100 Weslayan, Ste. 300

Houston, TX 77027

Scott R. Taylor

Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams

8200 IH 10 West, Ste. 610

San Antonio, TX 78230

David W. Green

Hartline, Dacus, Barger, Dreyer

800 N. Shoreline Blvd.

Suite 2000, North Tower

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Christopher Andrew Lowrance

Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams

Fros t Bank Plaza, Ste. 1300

802 N. Carancahua Street

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Hon. Vaughan Waters

Thorton, Biechlin, Segrato, Reynolds &

Guerra, L. C.

100 NE Loop 410, Ste. 500

San Antonio, TX 78216

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Brian C. Miller

Royston, Rayz or, Vickery & Williams

Frost Bank Plaza

802 N. Carancahua St., Suite 1300

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 11

- 00005

- CV, 13

- 11

- 00013

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. C

- 1949

- 04

- J

Style: BRANNAN PAVING GP, LLC D/B/A BRANNAN PAVING COMPANY v.

PAVEMENT MARKINGS, INC., SAN JUAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.

D/B/A VALLEY INSURANCE PROVIDERS AND LEICHT GENERAL

AGENCY

Corrected Bill of Costs for the above referenced causes are enclosed.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. OSAYANSE OBARGHEDO, AKA Abu, AKA Thomas Lester, AKA John Price, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-50094 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00186-ABC-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 28, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Appellant Osayanse Obarghedo (Obar ghedo) appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of fifteen or moreunauthorized access devices. We affirm. 

# FILED
OCT 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.1. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Obarghedo’s third motion to substitute counsel. See United States v. MendezSanchez , 563 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 2009).

2. The district court did not clearly err when it denied Obarghedo’s motion to dismiss the information based on alleged Speedy Trial Act violations. After an evidentiary hearing, the districtcourt determined that Obarghedo failed to provide “direct [or] indirect support for his contention that prosecutors conspired with [immigration authorities] to extend his detention until an indictment could be returned.” United States v. Pena-Carrillo , 46 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir. 1995).

3. The district court acted within its discretion when it excluded the voicemail purportedly from Obarghedo’s cousin because Obarghedo failed to prove his cousin’s unavailability. Moreove r, Obarghedo failed to demonstrate the requisite corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the statement’s trustworthiness as required by Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). See United States v. Gadson , Nos. 12-30007, 12-30047, – F.3d –, 2014 WL 4067203, at *5-*6 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014).

24. The district court did not clearly err in its calculation of the financial institutions’ actual losses and corresponding restitution. See United States v. Armstead , 552 F.3d 769, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2008), as amended (recognizing that the district court may consider uncharged conduct in calculating a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss).

5. The district court’s upward departure in Obarghedo’s criminal history category was substantively reasonabl e because it was based on Obarghedo’s extensive criminal history, his fraudulent conduct, recidivism concerns, and the need for deterrence. See United States v. Ellis , 641 F.3d 411, 413, 420-21 (9th Cir. 2011). Obarghedo’s procedural challenges—ba sed on the district court’s failure to state in writing the basis for its departure and the district court’s consideration of evidence of immigration and mortgage fraud introduced at Obarghedo’s trial—also fail. See id. at 422. AFFIRMED.

3
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (14-120)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Notice of Membership of SES Performance Review Board.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454 (Section 405) requires that appointments of individual members to the Performance Review Board (PRB) be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

The performance review function for the SES in NASA is being performed by the NASA PRB. The following individuals are serving on the Board:

## Performance Review Board

Chairperson, Associate Administrator, NASA Headquarters

Chair, Executive Resources Board, NASA Headquarters

Deputy Associate Administrator, NASA Headquarters

Associate Administrator for Mission Support Directorate, NASA Headquarters

Associate Administrator for Diversity and Equal Opportunity, NASA Headquarters

Cheryl E. Parker,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-27469 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1687

HERSCHELL L. HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STANTON H. FERGUSON, JR., Chief, Operations

Division; A. CATHERINE AMIDON, Chief, IMOO;

ROSITA PARKS, Director; SHIRLEY HOHN, Shift

Leader,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-96-239)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herschell L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Herschell L. Harris appeals the district court's order denying

his tort action as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1994),

amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110

Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harris v. Ferguson,

No. CA-96-239 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 1996). We deny Harris's motions to

appoint counsel, for discovery, for expedited treatment, and for

production of documents. 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
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm:

Street address: 

City/State/Zip:

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this ourt’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 . . §1746, this

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 89 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1733
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00423-CR

DAVID DIAZ A/K/A DAVID RAY DIAZ JR.

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR16000646-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 23, 2023