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

No. 18
- 7156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANNA B. HOLT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon

. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cr
- 00030

- JPJ

- PMS

- 1 )

Submitted : January 30, 2019 Decided: February 7, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anna B. Holt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anna B. Holt appeals from the district court’s orders deny ing her motion to modify her restitution order and her motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record reveals that Holt is not challenging the district court’s restitution order, but rather she challenges a payment schedule under the Inmate Financia l Responsibility Program. Such a claim must be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition after exhaustion of administrative remedies. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal cont entions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60881 Summary Calendar

MAGDALENE TIKUN TEBA, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A97 186 634

-------------------- Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Clement, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Magdalene Tikun Teba petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen. Teba contends that her right to due process was violated because the immigration judge (IJ) failed to fully inform her of her right to seek an adjustment of status based on her marriage to a United States citizen in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2) and that the BIA improperly relied on facts not supported by the record. Teba also argues that she failed to comply with the order to voluntarily depart due to ineffective assistance ofNo. 04-60881 -2- counsel. She contends that this constitutes exceptional circumstances excusing her failure to comply such that she should not be barred from seeking an adjustment of status. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales , 413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir. 2005). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Teba’s motion to reopen because the BIA determined that Teba was advised of her right to seek an adjustment of status based on her marriage but that she elected to forgo this application until after her asylum hearing. Given this fact, Teba’s reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2) to establish a due process violation based on the alleged failure to inform her of the availability of such relief is misplaced. See Ahmed v. Gonzales , F.3d , No. 05- 60032, 2006 WL 1064196 at *7 (5th Cir. Apr. 24, 2006) (holding that because an application for adjustment of status is a request for discretionary relief, it does not create a liberty or property interest that is protected by due process). Likewise, Teba’s assertions of ineffective assistance do not excuse her failure to comply with the order to voluntarily depart because the exceptional circumstances excuse that she relies on was repealed by Congress and is no longer provided for by statute.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Additionally, any failure to preserve the ability to pursue discretionary relief does not implicate due
process. See Ahmed , 2006 WL 1064196 at *7; Assaad v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004).No. 04-60881 -3- The petition for review is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Daniel P. Beharry, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify
that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
                                                     /S/ DANIEL P. BEHARRY
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Daniel P. Beharry
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

                                                     June 14, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Mera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.






                                      -14-
<PAGE>
#### Bedford Nelson *v.*Ann Nelson.

Wills — Bequest—Discretionary Power.

A 'bequest by one to bis former slave and faithful servant was held to vest discretionary power in the testator’s wife as to its payment.

APPEAL, PROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 19, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge PryoR:

The devise to Bedford seems to have vested a discretionary power alone in the wife, as to its payment; and whether so or not, the relation between the owner and the slave at the time of the death *385of the devisor, gave to the wife the power, if she saw proper, to withhold any payment. The wife, however, regarding the moral obligations imposed on her, both by her husband’s will and the kind treatment by Bedford, attempted to execute this provision for his benefit. Nor are we disposed to adjudge that she has failed to do this. Bedford was furnished with a home for his wife and children for the years 1861-2-3, and seems to have lived contented and comfortable until his embarrassment by reason of the purchase of property he was unable to pay for. Mrs. Nelson kept the accounts of the work in the blacksmith shop, as reported to her by Bedford, he collecting part of them and receiving the cash payments, as well as Mrs. Nelson, and from the proceeds maintaining himself and family during the existence of the alleged partnership.

*Dunlap, for appellant.*

*Hill & Alcorn, for appellee.*

There was no reference to arbitration between the parties, and no final award, if there had been. In the settlement of accounts between partners, even in such a business undertaking, many of the accounts would necessarily be worthless, and for which neither party should be held to account. Bedford, also, had the use of his house for two years afterwards without charge, and from' the proof lived better whilst he was obtaining the indulgence and living under the control of his old mistress, than afterwards. The object Mrs. Nelson had in view, no doubt, in giving him such prominence in the business he was conducting for her, was to make him feel his ability to provide for his children, and to evince her liberality towards him by reason of his faithfulness to her and her deceased husband. It is unfortunate that he should have lost his money in the purchase of the house and *lot;*but this is not to be attributed to the appellee, or if so, Bedford must depend upon her liberality and charity alone, as he had previously done, for its restitution. Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
        10.31

      Form
        of Allonge

      


      


      


      


      THIS
        ALLONGE
        to the
        Promissory Note (the “Note”) in the original principal sum of $__________, dated
        ______________, 200__, made by Marc Pharmaceuticals, Inc., payable to
        __________________hereby amends the Note to provide that its maturity date
        shall
        be extended from ________________, 200_ to _____________, 200_.

      


      All
        other
        terms of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.

      


      This
        Allonge shall be attached to the Note and is hereby made a part
        thereof.

      


      This
        Allonge may be signed in counterparts, both of which taken together shall
        constitute one and the same instrument.

      


      Dated:
        ____________________________

      


      


      


      ___________________________

      


      


      


      Acknowledged
        and agreed:

      


      MARC
        PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

      


      By:____________________________

      Name:
        Robert M. Cohen

      Title:
        President
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4570 

To amend provisions of law originally enacted in the Clinger-Cohen Act 

to enhance agency planning for information security needs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2004 

Mr. PUTNAM (for himself and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend provisions of law originally enacted in the ClingerCohen Act to enhance agency planning for information 

security needs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO CLINGER–COHEN PROVI4 SIONS TO ENHANCE AGENCY PLANNING FOR 

5 INFORMATION SECURITY NEEDS. 

6 Chapter 113 of title 40, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in section 11302(b), by inserting ‘‘security,’’ 

9 after ‘‘use,’’; 
2 

•HR 4570 IH 

1 (2) in section 11302(c), by inserting ‘‘, includ2 ing information security risks,’’ after ‘‘risks’’ both 

3 places it appears; 

4 (3) in section 11312(b)(1), by striking ‘‘infor5 mation technology investments’’ and inserting ‘‘in6 vestments in information technology (including infor7 mation security needs)’’; and 

8 (4) in section 11315(b)(2), by inserting ‘‘, se9 cure,’’ after ‘‘sound’’. 

Æ
Exhibit
32.1





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350




In
connection with the Annual Report of HuntMountain Resources, Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the SEC on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tim Hunt, Chairman and
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.




/s/
      Tim HuntTim
      HuntChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




Date:
April 14, 2009
exv10w02



 









Exhibit 10.02


















D-1






 













D-2






 













D-3






 













D-4






 













D-5






 













D-6
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28297]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Effective date: December 2, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 25, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Express Contract 20 to Competitive Product List. Documents are 
available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2015-12, CP2015-15.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Requirements.
[FR Doc. 2014-28297 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4471 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs with instructions that when the Committee reports, the bill be referred pursuant 

to the order of May 27, 1988, to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 

and Urban Affairs for a period not to exceed 60 days 

AN ACT 

To clarify the loan guarantee authority under title VI of 

the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 4471 RIS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeownership Op3 portunities for Native Americans Act of 2004’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FEDERAL GUARANTEES FOR FINANCING FOR TRIB5 AL HOUSING ACTIVITIES. 

6 Section 601 of the Native American Housing Assist7 ance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 

8 4191) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

9 subsection: 

10 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON PERCENTAGE.—A guarantee 

11 made under this title shall guarantee repayment of 95 per12 cent of the unpaid principal and interest due on the notes 

13 or other obligations guaranteed.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
##### 



Exhibit 32-17 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 this Form 10-K/A of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:  (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. Date: June 17, 2005
    /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.Anthony F. Earley, Jr.Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
ARTICLES OF MERGER
                                      OF
                        TUALATIN VINEYARDS, INC.      #099545-12
                               WITH AND INTO
                    WILLAMETTE VALLEY VINEYARDS, INC. #108800-86


Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 60.494, Willamette Valley 
Vineyards, Inc., an Oregon corporation (Willamette), the 
surviving corporation of the merger of Tualatin Vineyards, Inc., 
an Oregon corporation (Tualatin), with and into Willamette (the 
Merger), files these articles of merger with the office of the 
Secretary of State.

1.   The Plan of Merger.  The Plan of Merger among 
Willamette, Tualatin and William Malkmus, William Fuller, 
Virginia Fuller, Loran Stewart, Jewel Hult, William Manning, Paul 
Ten Doesschate and Bruce Herzinger is set forth as Exhibit A and 
is incorporated by reference.        

2.   Shareholder Approval.  The Merger required the approval 
of Tualatin's shareholders.  Tualatin's shareholders approved the 
Merger as follows:

(a)  7,675 shares of common stock were outstanding and 
entitled to vote on the Merger. 

(b)  7,675 shares of common stock voted for the Merger 
and no shares voted against the Merger.

3.   Effective date.  These Articles of Merger are effective 
when duly filed with the Corporate Division of the Secretary of 
State of the state of Oregon.

4.   Contact. The person to contact about this filing is:

Jack W. Schifferdecker, Jr.
Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson & Skerritt
222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1800
Portland, OR  97201

Telephone: (503) 226-1191

Dated:  April  15 , 1997.

WILLAMETTE VALLEY VINEYARDS, INC.

By: /s/ J. W. Bernau     
     Name:  James Bernau
     Title:  President
 Status:  DOCUMENT CONVERTED TO FINAL ON February 20, 1997.  
DATES MAY BE DATE CODES AND NOT HARD DATES.
108800-86



PDX4-56860.1   75100-0005
#### Henry Berte *v.*Joseph Evans.

Bills and Notes — Necessity of Protest.

Protest is not necessary to bind an indorser or acceptor of an inland bill of exchange.

Pleading — Accuracy and Formality of Statement.

A pleading cannot be said to state no cause of action unless it states the cause with technical accuracy, and according to the established rules of pleading.

APPEAL, PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 4, 1873.

*Whitaker, for appellant.*

*Handy, Wright, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The bill of exchange described in the petition is an inland bill and hence it was not necessary to bind the indorser or acceptor that it should be protested.

The petition does distinctly state that the bill was dishonored and that appellant was duly notified of that fact.' It is true the plaintiff does not state the manner in which the notice was given, and that he pleads a legal conclusion. This defect could have been reached by demurrer, but it cannot be said that because the cause of action is not stated with technical accuracy arid according to the established rules of pleading, the petition discloses no cause of action at all, and unless we do so hold, we can not reverse upon this appeal.

The judgment must therefore be *affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 11

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                               CROWELL & CO., INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Year ended December 31,
                                                           ---------------------------
                                                               1998            1997
                                                           -----------     -----------
<S>                                                        <C>             <C>         
NET LOSS                                                   $   173,069     $   (27,180)

PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS                                      (80,952)        (80,952)
                                                           -----------     -----------

         NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS        $    92,117     $  (108,132)
                                                           ===========     ===========

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding      2,520,835       2,520,835
   Primary earnings per share
      loss from continuing operations                      $       .04     $      (.02)
      Income from discontinued operations                           --            (.03)
                                                           -----------     -----------

         NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE                         $       .04     $      (.05)
                                                           ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                             791
<SECURITIES>                                       709
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1399
<ALLOWANCES>                                        30
<INVENTORY>                                       3055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9282
<PP&E>                                            9389
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5517
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3939
<OTHER-SE>                                        1087
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     15083
<SALES>                                          13200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 13200
<CGS>                                             9554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 15682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12243)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12243)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.66)
        

</TABLE>