alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

US VISIT : The world’s largest 

biometric application 

William Graves 

US-VISIT 

March 4, 2010 
Biometric Identity Screening Services 

In 2004, the United States Visitor and Immigrant

Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program

became the first, large-scale biometric 

identification program of its kind, enabling the

collection of international travelers’ biometrics— 

fingerprints and a digital photograph—at U.S.

ports of entry. Today, the United States is not 

alone in recognizing the benefits of biometrics for

immigration and border management. 

2 
A Day in the Life of US-VISIT 

• 97,000 identities enrolled or verified at the ports of entry for US 

Customs and Border Protection and US Border Patrol 

• 11,000 Applicants identities enrolled or verified for US Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

• 3,500 Immigration violators identities enrolled or verified for US 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

• 9 Illegal migrants’ identities enrolled or verified for US Coast Guard at 

sea 

• 26,800 Visa applicants' identities enrolled or verified for the US 

Department of State 

• 7,000 Fingerprints verified as part of investigation support across 

agencies, helping solve crimes, identify John Does, and support 

terrorist investigations 

• 500 identities of criminals, immigration violators and Known or 

suspected terrorists enrolled or verified for DOD and intelligence 

agencies 

3 
 

 

 

IDENT: “Automated Biometric Identification System” 

Biometric processing system for rapid identification and verification utilizing 

fingerprints 

• World’s Largest: 110 Million People 

• World’s Fastest: 300,000 Transactions/Day 

• 220 Million Transactions (Encounters) Processed 

• Over 160 Million Identifications and Verifications 

• Over 65,000 Wanted Criminals Identified (Including DC Snipers) 

• Matcher Power of over 500 Million Matches/Sec 

• Inputs From Over: 

- 15,000 DHS Users 

- 5,000 Work Stations 

- 210 Overseas Consular Posts 

• Automated Synchronization with FBI IAFIS 

4 
Looking Ahead 

• Multimodal biometrics 

• Work with increased number of international 

partners 

• Work with the private sector on new and innovative 

ways to support our operational stakeholders 

• Prepare for the decision on biometric air exit 

5
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4486 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Anisic Aldehyde. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2004 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Anisic Aldehyde. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON ANISIC ALDEHYDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following: 

‘‘ 9902.34.34 Anisic Aldehyde (CAS No. 

123–11–5) (provided for in 

subheading 2912.49.10) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 
2 

•HR 4486 IH 

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
10639.

#### Central of Georgia Railway Company *v.*Payne.

Decided December 23, 1919.

Certiorari; from Walker superior court—Judge Wright. May 3, 1919.

*Rosser &*Shaw, for plaintiff in error.

*Henry &*Jackson, contra.

Stephens, J.

This case was brought by the plaintiff in the justice’s court against the railroad company, charging defendant with negligently killing plaintiff’s hog by running against it with a car while the hog was upon the defendant’s railroad-track. In addition to the presumption, there was some evidence from which the jury could infer negligence on the part of the defendant. The errors complained of in the petition for certiorari being contained only in the general grounds, and the judge of the superior court having overruled the same, this judgment will not be disturbed. *A. B. & A. Ry. Co.*v. *Poncell,*22 *Ga. App.*713 (97 S. E. 103).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                     WILLIAMS HOLDINGS OF DELAWARE, INC.
              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES*
                            (Dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Years Ended December 31,
                                          -------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1997          1996         1995         1994         1993
                                          --------      --------     --------     --------     --------
<S>                                       <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>     
Earnings:
   Income from continuing
      operations before extraordinary
      loss and income taxes               $  455.1      $  529.6     $  372.3     $  258.4     $  399.7
   Add:
      Interest expense-net                   113.2          89.3         89.5         74.6         56.1
      Rental expense representative
         of interest factor                   20.2          11.9         18.7         11.0          8.8
      Preferred dividends of
         subsidiaries                           --            --          5.4           --           --
      Minority interest income of
         consolidated subsidiaries            18.2           1.4          2.3          1.6          1.4
      Other                                    (.4)          3.3          3.1          3.3          1.4
                                          --------      --------     --------     --------     --------

Total earnings as adjusted plus
   fixed charges                          $  606.3      $  635.5     $  491.3     $  348.9     $  467.4
                                          ========      ========     ========     ========     ========

Combined fixed charges:
   Interest expense-net                   $  113.2      $   89.3     $   89.5     $   74.6     $   56.1
   Capitalized interest                       19.3           4.8         11.5          4.7          8.2
   Rental expense representative
      of interest factor                      20.2          11.9         18.7         11.0          8.8
   Pretax effect of dividends on
      preferred stock of subsidiaries           --            --          7.7           --           --
                                          --------      --------     --------     --------     --------

         Total fixed charges              $  152.7      $  106.0     $  127.4     $   90.3     $   73.1
                                          ========      ========     ========     ========     ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed
   charges                                    3.97          6.00         3.86         3.86         6.39
                                          ========      ========     ========     ========     ========
</TABLE>

* Restated to reflect the acquisition of MAPCO Inc., which has been accounted
  for as a pooling of interests.
#### Carl Anthony GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CITY OF NORFOLK; Paul R. Riddick; Daun S. Hester; Willie Ponds; Keela Boose, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1052.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 6, 2001.

Carl Anthony Gray, pro se. M. Wayne Ringer, Daniel R. Hagemeister, City Attorney’s Office, Norfolk, VA, for appellees.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Carl A Gray appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Gray’s civil complaint originally filed in state court and removed by Defendants to the district court and denying Gray’s motions for remand, for sanctions, and to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, the transcripts of the hearings held on December 13, 2000, and January 4, 2001, at which the district court stated from the bench its reasons for denying relief, and Gray’s informal brief filed in this court. We find no reversible error in the court’s denial of Gray’s motions to remand, to amend, and to impose sanctions. With regard to the motion to dismiss, Gray has not preserved any issue for our review because he failed to challenge the bases for the district court’s ruling on that motion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Gray v. Board of Supervisors,*No. CA-00-825-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2000 & Jan. 4, 2001). 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.*
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 14, 2023. 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00781-CV 

CORNELIUS GIBSON, Appellant 

V. 

BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-19211 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by October 20, 2023. By 

postcard dated October 24, 2023, we informed appellant his brief was overdue and 

directed him to file his brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed his brief or otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

230781F.P05 

 

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CORNELIUS GIBSON, Appellant 

No. 05-23-00781-CV V. 

BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 298th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-19211. 

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Garcia participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered November 14, 2023
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **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 Entropin, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
        10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
        capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
 
 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.
 
 
 Dated:
        August 9, 2005
  By:
              /s/
                    David
                    NorrisDavid
                  NorrisChief
                  Executive Officer
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, or othr document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise
        adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
        of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
        Entropin, Inc. and will be retained by Entropin, Inc. and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
9715.

#### Groves, adm’x, *v.*Bibb Sewer Pipe Company.

1. On the traverse of an answer of “not indebted,” filed in response to a summons of garnishment, the issue is, whether the garnishee had at the time of service, or between that time and the date of his answer, assets of the defendant in his hands.

*(a)*Under the answer of the Supreme Court to the certified question in this case (149 *Ga.*542, 101 S. E. 190), the statement in the headnote in *Mosely*v. *McGough,*69 *Ga.*748, that “on the traverse of an answer of not indebted, filed in response to a summons of garnishment, the issue is, whether the garnishee had at the time of service, or has since had, assets of the defendant in his hands,” is not correct, and it will not be followed as a ruling of that court.

2. There is no statute of force in this State making the process of garnishment available to a creditor who seeks to subject realty of his debtor in the possession of a third person to the payment of the creditor’s debt.

(а) The word “property” in section 5272 of the Civil Code of 1910 does not include land.

(б) Nor do the words “legacy or distributive share,” in section 5304 of the Civil Code include land, or any interest therein.

3. Applying the principles of law stated above to the facts of the instant case, the finding in favor of the traverse and against the answer of the garnishee was contrary to law and the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Decided December 10, 1919.

Garnishment; from city court of Macon—Judge Guerry. March 21, 1918.

*8. B. Hunter, II. F. Strohecher,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hardeman, Jones, Parle & Johnston, Harry 8. 8trozier,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

Certain questions involved in this case were certified by this court to the Supreme Court, and the latter court, in answer thereto, ruled substantially as set forth in the. 1st and 2d headnotes, supra. For an elaboration of these notes see the full opinion of the Supreme Court in *Groves*v. *Bibb Sewer Pipe Co.,*149 *Ga.*542 (101 S. E. 190).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF BOLLINGER INDUSTRIES, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBSIDIARY                                        JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION
----------                                        ----------------------------
<S>                                               <C>
Bollinger Operating Corp.                         Nevada

Bollinger Holding Corp.                           Delaware

C.G. Products, Inc.                               California

NBF, Inc.                                         Georgia

Bollinger Industries, L.P. (Indirect)             Texas
</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

KAD/Research 1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSENDO MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71572

Agency No. A072-692-604

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Rosendo Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction

FILED

DEC 28 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KAD/Research 2 07-71572

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224

F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Martinez failed to

establish past persecution because the threats he faced do not rise to the level of

persecution. See id. at 936.

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Martinez does not

have a well-founded fear of future persecution, particularly in light of Martinez’

lack of active support for the guerillas or the government, and the signing of the

1996 Peace Accords. See Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
November 18, 1976 

The Honorable W. J. Estelle, Jr. Opinion No. H- 899 

Director 

Texas Department of Corrections Re: Whether the estate 

Huntsville, Texas 77340 of a deceased employee 

may be paid for compensatory time. 

Dear Mr. Estelle: 

you have requested our opinion regarding whether the 

estate of a deceased employee may be paid for the.employee% 

unused compensatory time. 

In National League of Cities v. Usery, 49 L. Ed.Zd 245 

(1976), the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional 

those portions of the Fair Labor Standards Act which required 

states to pay their employees premium rates for overtime work. 

As we noted in Attorney General Opinion R-883 (19761, this 

decision means that most state employees are not subject to 

the Act. The current General Appropriations Act, Acts 1975, 

64th Leg., ch. 743, art. V, 9 2e, at 2846, permits payment 

for compensatory time only where an agency or institution 

is subject to the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

In Attorney General Opinion H-883, we expressed the 

opinion that persons who were separated from state employment 

would not be entitled to be paid for compensatory time. In 

our opinion, a similar result obtains with respect to deceased 

employees. We are supported in this opinion by section 7g 

of article V of the General Appropriations Act, which specifically permits payment to the estate of a deceased employee 

for "all of the employee's accumulated vacation leave and 

for one-half of his accumulated sick leave." Since the 

Legislature failed to provide for payment of unused compensatory 

time to the estate of a deceased employee, it is our opinion 

that no such payment is authorized. 

p. 3774 
The Honorable W. J. Estelle, Jr. - page 2 (H-899) 

SUMMARY 

The estate of a deceased state employee 

may not be paid for the employee's unused 

compensatory time. 

Very truly yours, 

. /$!&~&of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3775
Legal Resource Task Group OSAC Affiliates 

December 2023 

AFFILIATES 

Todd Edelman 

Hanni Fakhoury 

Sabrina Feve 

Jennifer Friedman 

Elizabeth Geddes 

Emily Prokesch 

 

Matthew Redle 

Andrea Roth 

Barry Scheck
#### The People v. Joseph B. Coveyou.

*Examination as to whether plea of guilty is nolunia/ry.*

A plea of guilty cannot be supposed to have been made ignorantly or under compulsion where respondent had counsel and first pleaded Not Guilty and after a delay of three weeks came into court and by leave of the court withdrew the plea and pleaded guilty and it affirmatively appeared that the judge made inquiry to satisfy himself that his action expressed his real desire.

Error to Ionia.

Submitted and decided April 25.

Information for burglary. Respondent brings error.

Conviction affirmed.

*Moses Bartow*for appellant.

Attorney General *Jacob J. Yon Itvp&r*for the People.

Per Curiam.

The only error relied upon in this case is that the circuit judge did not, after receiving the respondent’s plea of guilty, make the necessary examination to-enable him to determine that the plea was freely and intelligently made. The error is not satisfactorily made out. The respondent first pleaded not guilty, and the record shows that he had counsel, and after three weeks’ delay came into court and by leave of the court withdrew the first plea and pleaded guilty. It affirmatively appears that the judge made inquiry to satisfy himself that this action expressed the respondent’s real desire, and there can be no-assumption under the facts stated that he had acted in ignorance or under compulsion.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,368-01

EX PARTE HOLLY CHRISTINE VANSUMEREN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1086412-A IN THE 182ND DISTRICT COURT 

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Fournier, 473

S.W.3d 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

FILED: FEBRUARY 10, 2016

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)  I, Gandolfo Verra, Chief Financial Officer of Cordia Corporation (the "Registrant") do hereby 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, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period September 30, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  By: /s/        Gandolfo Verra Chief Financial Officer   November 14, 2007  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cordia Corporation and will be retained by Cordia Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.