alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1724

MAX MALEKE; SILVANA SUMILAT, Petitioners,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-586-537; A78-586-538) Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 16, 2006 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred L. Robertson, Jr., STEPHEN J. SHEEHY III & ASSOCIATES, Annandale, Virginia, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Diane Kelleher, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Petitioners filed only one application for asylum. Sumilat was identified as a beneficiary of Maleke’s application for asylum, and did not apply for asylum in her own right. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Max Maleke and his wife, Silvana Sumilat, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of their application for asylum. * We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners challenge the immigration judge’s denial of the application for asylum and the finding that the application was untimely filed. Petitioners also requested that this court order a new proceeding regarding changed country conditions in Indonesia. The Attorney General c ontends that Petitioners waived these arguments because they did not raise them on appeal to the Board. Failure to raise arguments before the Board constitutes a waiver of those issues and precludes review by this court. SeeGonahasa v. INS , 181 F.3d 538, 544 (4th Cir. 1999). Our review of Petitioners’ brief to the Board supports the Attorney General’s argument, and we therefore do not review the underlying merits of these claims. As for the denial of Petitioners’ request for asylum, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s determination that Petitioners failed to file within one year of the date of their arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). Whether the application was filed- 3 - within one year of Petitioners’ admission to the United States is a question of fact; accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction to review the determination that the application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000); Chen v. United States Dep’t of Justice , 434 F.3d 144, 150-54 (2nd Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Petitioners’ asylum claims. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 476 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 18, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the 
resolution (H. Res. 463) to establish the Select Committee on U.S. National 
Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China. 
The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the 
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The resolution, as amended, shall be 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended, to final adoption 
without intervening motion.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
J. Kimo Esplin, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of HMP Equity Holdings Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004;

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 officers 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)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 28, 2005

| |  | /s/J. KIMO ESPLINJ. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jonathan C. Coon, 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) 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/ Jonathan C. Coon
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     Date: November 12, 2002
10309.

#### SYKES *v.*THE STATE.

Decided April 12, 1919.

Refusal to exclude evidence objected to as a whole when in part admissible is not ground for a new trial.

Under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Calhoun*v. *State,*144 *Ga.*679 (87 S. E. 893), the objection that the evidence was obtained by illegal arrest and search is not good.

The evidence authorized the verdict of guilty.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Brainbridge— Judge Spooner.' December 16, 1918.

*W. V. Custer,*for plaintiff in error.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The defendant was convicted of carrying concealed weapons. The only ground of the motion for a new trial other than the general grounds complains that the evidence of the witness for the State “was obtained by the unlawful and illegal arrest of the defendant by the witness, his person searched unlawfully and illegally, being forcibly and without' the consent and against the will of the defendant,” and that he was thereby compelled to furnish incriminating evidence against himself, in violation of the constitution: In *Calhoun*v. *State,*144 Ga 679, it was held that, “On the trial of a criminal case, incriminatory evidence which was taken from the person of the accused by one who had illegally arrested him, and who discovered it by search of his person while he was under illegal arrest, if relevant, is not inadmissible as' contravening the constitutional provisions that No person' shall be compelled to give testimony tending in any manner to criminate hemself.’ ” Under that ruling the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence complained of.

However, even if this were error, this court would be under no duty to consider the assignment of error in this ground of the *548motion for new trial, for the entire evidence of the witness - for the State was set out therein, the alleged error is the refusal to exclude the entire evidence, and a part of the evidence quoted was clearly admissible. “ ‘Where evidence, partly competent and partly incompetent, was offered and objected-to as a whole, the illegal portion not being specified nor objected to separately, admitting all of such evidence affords no legal cause of complaint to the objecting party *Smalls*v. *State,*99 *Ga.*86 (8) [85 S. E. 614]. See also *Maynard*v. *Interstate Association,*118 *Ga.*443 [37 S. E. 741]; *Southern Ry. Co.*v. *Gilmore,*115 *Ga.*890; *Gully*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*587 [48 S. E. 790]; *Kelly*v. *Strouse,*Id. 881 [43 S. E. 880]; *Walker*v. *Neil,*117 *Ga.*739 [45 S. E. 387] and cit.” *Barnard*v. *State,*119 *Ga.*436 (3) (46 S. E. 644).

8. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no error of law having been committed, it must stand.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Opinion issued April 9 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 24 - 00209 - CR

——————————— MICHAEL HIDALGO , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 0549326A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Michael Hidalgo appeals from the trial court’s denial of his original writ of error coram nobis. We dismiss the appeal. “A petition for writ of coram nobis is a writ of error directed to a court requesting it to review its own judgment based on alleged errors of fact.” Padilla2

v. State , No. 13

- 21

- 00093

- CR, 2021 WL 2371515, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

- Edinburgh June 10, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing to In re Reyes , 195 S.W.3d 127, 127 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2005, orig. proceeding)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has long held that the common law writ of coram nobis is inapplicable in Texas. See Ex parte Massey , 249 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952); see also In re Parker , No. 03

- 17

- 00183

- CV, 2017 WL 1228891, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Mar. 31, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Clark v. State , No. 10

- 05

- 00301

- CR, 2005 WL 2100270, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Waco Aug. 31, 20 05 , no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal from denial of writ of coram nobis). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Hightower
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27367]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

[OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1678]


Criminal Justice Restraints Standard, NIJ Standard-1001.00

AGENCY: National Institute of Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) announces publication 
of Criminal Justice Restraints Standard, NIJ Standard 1001.00. The 
document can be found here: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247988.pdf. 
Conformity assessment organizations are invited to review the document 
and provide any feedback to the point of contact listed below. This 
standard is planned to supersede NIJ Standard for Metallic Handcuffs, 
NIJ Standard 0307.01, found here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/082981.pdf. The effective date that this will occur will be given six 
months prior through a notice in the Federal Register. For more 
information about NIJ standards, please visit http://nij.gov/standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Montgomery, by telephone at 
(202) 353-9786 [Note: this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c7e6e757d7232717372687b7371796e655c696f787376327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbb9a9b2bab5f5b6b4b5afbcb4b6bea9a29baea8bfb4b1f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

William Sabol,
Acting Director, National Institute of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2014-27367 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

AUSTIN HUMPHRIES, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA,



## Respondent. No. 82688 

# FILED AUG 1 2021

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA BROWN 'OURT BY ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL DEPUTY CLERK This is an appeal from an amended judgment of conviction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge.

This court previously entered an order noting that this appeal may have been rendered moot and ordering appellant to either file and serve a motion or stipulation to dismiss this appeal, or points and authorities explaining why this appeal is not moot. The parties have now filed a stipulation to dismiss this appeal. The stipulation is approved and this appeal is dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

Cadish , J.

Pickering 

# A
, J. 

## (74 =mm.mill ",

J. Herndon



# - Tut 77-S"cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA OH 1947A alas

' 15 2
United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For: 

California 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, anddemonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate. The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope 

Mass Echelon II Volume Transfer, II LPG AC Energy—Watthour Calibration

2 kg to 1 mg 100 gal to 25 gal 240 V to 120 V 

Mass Echelon III 30 kg to 1 mg 

Length Steel Tapes, Tape to Tape 

Range 250 mA to 50 A (0° Phase Angle) 

1000 lb to 0.001 lb 100 ft to 1 ft Field Calibrations NIST Office 

8 oz to 0.01 oz Volume Gravimetric, I 

Temperature, III 65.556 °C to 0 °C 

Mass Echelon III 50 lb to 25 lb Effective Date

5 gal to 1 gill 150 °F to 32 °F Volume Transfer, II Volume Transfer, II Time 500 gal to 5 gal 1000 gal to 1 gal Stopwatches 

3 h 

Volume Transfer, II LPG 

100 gal to 25 gal 

___________Katrice Lipp

(Rev.: September 2021)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4012 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4012

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to 
reauthorize for 5 additional years the public school and private school 
         tuition assistance programs established under the Act.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4012

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to 
reauthorize for 5 additional years the public school and private school 
         tuition assistance programs established under the Act.

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

SECTION 1. 5-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Public School Program.--Section 3(i) of the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 38--2702(i), D.C. Official 
Code) is amended by striking ``each of the five succeeding fiscal 
years'' and inserting ``each of the 10 succeeding fiscal years''.
    (b) Private School Program.--Section 5(f) of such Act (sec. 38--
2704(f), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``each of the five 
succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``each of the 10 succeeding 
fiscal years''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Illinois State Rifle Association, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04270

Honorable Mary M. Rowland

Brendan F. Kelly, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, July 12, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiffs' response to

Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint [94] is due 8/9/21.

Defendants' reply due 8/30/21. The court will rule by mail. Mailed notice. (dm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 97 Filed: 07/12/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:570
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

SHERYL TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3037 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT1221120255-W-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Sheryl Taylor moves for leave to supplement her informal brief. She further moves for this court to order the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the United 

States Department of the Treasury/IRS to appoint or 

assign counsel to her, as well as to sanction the same for 

withholding federal funds and denying counsel to her 

Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2013
SHERYL TAYLOR V. MSPB 2

during her petition before the MSPB. Finally, Taylor 

moves to strike the respondent’s pleadings in this appeal. 

Ms. Taylor had previously moved for this court to order the MSPB and the Department of the Treasury/IRS to 

appoint or assign counsel. That request was denied 

because this court has no procedure to appoint counsel for 

a pro se litigant. We treat her subsequent motions for the 

same relief as a motion for reconsideration. Because this 

court does not have a procedure for appointing or assigning counsel to pro se litigants, we deny the motion for 

reconsideration. 

Ms. Taylor’s informal brief addresses her argument 

regarding the appointment of counsel by the MSPB. 

Because it appears that Ms. Taylor’s request for sanctions 

relating to appointment of counsel is intertwined with the 

merits of her case, we deem it the better course to defer 

the motion for sanctions to the merits panel. 

Ms. Taylor also asks the court to strike the respondent’s brief because of their failure to appoint her counsel. 

We find that to be an insufficient basis to strike the 

briefs. The respondent’s brief addresses the issue of 

appointment of counsel by the MSPB. The merits panel 

has discretion to determine the relevance of the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motions for reconsideration of appointment or 

assignment of counsel are denied. 

(2) The motion for sanctions is deferred for consideration by the merits panel. Copies of that motion shall be 

transmitted to the merits panel. 

Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2013
3 SHERYL TAYLOR V. MSPB

(3) The motion to strike the respondent’s brief is denied.

(4) The motion to supplement petitioner’s brief is 

granted. Copies of the supplemental brief will be transmitted to the merits panel.

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

 Clerk

s24 

Case: 13-3037 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 04/18/2013
SPACE UTILIZATION STUDY – VOLUME 1: SUMMARY REPORT

 JANUARY 2013 

Metropolitan Architects & Planners, Inc. and SST Planners, Inc. 

E XHIBIT 6: NIST CAMPUS GROWTH B Y DECADE