alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Uddin Siddiqui SOHAIL; Tehmina Sohail; Hamza Sohail, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-61003.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Sept. 20, 2006.

*447Ehsanur Rahman, Law Office of Ehsan, Houston, TX, for Petitioners.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Uddin Siddiqui Sohail and Tehmina So-hail, husband and wife respectively, and their son Hamza Sohail are citizens and natives of Pakistan and have petitioned this court for review of a BIA decision denying their request for withholding of removal under § 241(b)(8) of the INA.

Although the Government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Sohails’ petition, there is no jurisdicitonal defect because the issues presented by the Sohails’ petition for review were argued before the BIA and decided by the BIA. *See Myron v. Martin,*670 F.2d 49, 51 (5th Cir.1982). This court reviews the decision of the BIA and does not normally consider the rulings and findings of immigration judges unless they impact the Board’s decision. *Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.2002). Our review of the BIA’s decision is governed by the substantial evidence standard, which requires that the BIA’s decision be affirmed unless the “evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” *Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,*78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996); *see also INS v. EliasZacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (applying this standard to review of denial of withholding of removal).

The Sohails argue that the BIA erred in denying their request for withholding of removal because the threats to their lives from Tehmina’s brother constituted persecution against them on account of Tehmina’s membership in a particular social group — Muslim women. Regardless of whether the BIA erred by mischaraeterizing the Sohails’ suffering as “family matters” rather than persecution, any such *448error would be harmless because substantial evidence supported the finding of the BIA that the Sohails lived in Islamabad for three and a half years without incident, including two years at the same address. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that the Sohails could relocate safely to a part of Pakistan other than Karachi and that the Sohails are thus ineligible for withholding of removal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B); *see also Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir .2004).

For the foregoing reasons, the Sohails’ 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.
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








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey
B. Davis, Chief Executive Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 required by Section 906 or other document
authenticating, 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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 17th day of May,
2010.





/s/ Jeffrey B. Davis


Jeffrey
B. Davis


Chief
Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Axesstel, Inc. (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.

Dated: March 29, 2011



/s/    H. CLARK
HICKOCKH. Clark Hickock, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: March 29, 2011



/s/    PATRICK
GRAYPatrick Gray, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2153 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2153

     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Land Acquisition for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Land Acquisition for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
              INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, LAND ACQUISITION FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for U.S. Department of 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Land Acquisition for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $28,316,000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32(c)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  FOR PPL ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2005

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Energy Supply,
  LLC (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"),
  I, the principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
        of 1934, as amended; and                   
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered
        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  May 4, 2005 | /s/ William F. HechtWilliam F. Hecht
        President
        PPL Energy Supply, LLC
|------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Exhibit 10.1 Promissory Note





$5,000.00

May 5, 2015







PROMISSORY NOTE







As hereinafter agreed Jolley Marketing Inc., jointly and severally, promises to pay to the order of McKinley Capital 401K Roth Plan, Five Thousand Dollars and no cents.  ($5,000.00).  It is hereby agreed that the said amount shall be payable in full twenty-four months from the date of the note.  Interest shall accrue at the rate of Eight Percent (8%) per annum will be charged on the unpaid balance until the whole amount of the principal and interest is paid.  There shall be no penalty for early payment of this note.




Should default be made in the payment of the demand note then the whole unpaid amount shall become immediately due and payable; and in the event default is made and said note is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection or suit is brought on the same, then the undersigned agrees to pay all costs and attorney’s fees that might be incurred.  If there is a lawsuit, borrower agrees upon lenders request to submit to the jurisdiction of the county of Utah County, the State of Utah.  This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah.




UNDERSIGNED:

Steven White










/s/  Steve White

Steven White, President

Jolley Marketing, Inc.
#### Imtiaz A. Ishmail et al., Appellants, v ATM Three, LLC, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[826 NYS2d 63]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered September 13, 2005, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to vacate their default in answering and to compel plaintiffs to accept their answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death arising out of a fire started by defendant Bair am Singh at the premises owned and operated by defendants-respondents. Defendant Singh apparently pleaded guilty to arson for setting the fire and, accordingly, it is clear that defendants-respondents have a meritorious defense. In addition, the record supports defendants-respondents’ contention that plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to extend their time to answer, and demonstrates that the answer, although rejected by plaintiffs, was in fact served within the agreed-upon 30-day extension. Inasmuch as a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for the default have been shown, the motion to vacate the default and compel plaintiffs to accept defendants-respondents’ answer was properly granted *(see Barajas v Toll Bros.,*247 AD2d 242, 243 [1998]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Friedman and McGuire, JJ.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of E.W., Jr., S.W., A.W., 

M.W., and A.W., Children

No. 06-23-00057-CV

Appeal from the 62nd District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 91221). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Stevens, Justice van Cleef and 

Justice Rambin participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 3, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# FILED
January 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE APRIL 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9612-CR -00454 ) Appellant, ) KNOX COUN TY ) VS. ) HON. RICHARD BAUM GARTNER, ) JUDGE JAMES DAVID SHROPSHIRE, ) (Assa ult, Aggravate d Sexual Battery ) ) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JOHN KNOX WALKUP KENNETH F. IRVINE, JR. Attorney General and Repor ter 550 Main Avenue Chattanooga, TN 37402 NationsBank Center Suite 775 MICHAEL J. F

AHEY, II Knoxville, TN 37901 Assistant Attorney Gener al 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493 RANDALL E. NICHOLS District Attorney General WILLIAM H. C RABTREE CHARME JOHN SON Assistant District A

ttorney General City-County Buil ding Knoxville, TN 37902

OPINION FI LED:
REVERSED AND

REMANDED

CHRIS CRAF

T, SPECIAL JUDGE2 O P I N I O N
The State of Tennessee appeals from the decisi on of the trial judge dismissing convictions for assault and aggravated sexual battery due to insufficiency of the present ment. We reverse, reinstate the convictions and remand for furth er proceedings. Appellee, James David Shropshir e, was tried in September, 1995 on a th ree count presentment for Rape of a Child (C ount I) and Aggrav

ated Sex ual Battery ( Cou nts II and III). He was ac quitted of Count II and the jury deadlocked on Counts I and III. Upon retrial i n March 1996, Mr. Shropsh ire was convicted of assault as included in Count I and Aggravate d Sexual Battery as

charged in Count III. Pr ior to a hearing on the Motion for New Tri al, the trial judge di smissed the convictions due to the releas e of State v. Roger Dale Hill , No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996), because the present ment failed to allege a culpable mental state, an essential element of each offense. The Tennessee Supreme Court has since reversed the

holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Hill , holding instead that the required mental state may be inferred from the nature of the criminal conduct a lleged, and does not have to be alleged in the charging instru ment. State v. Roger Dale Hill , No. 01-S-01-9701-CC-00005 (Jackson, November 3, 1997)

. Having examined Counts I and III and found t hem sufficient to provide adequate notice to both the defendant and the trial court of each of fenses alleged, we therefore find that the dismissal of the present ment was not proper, r einstate t he convictions, and remand to the trial court for a hear ing on the Motion for New Trial and any

further required proceedings. The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CHRIS CRAFT, SPECIAL JU DGE3

CONCUR: JERRY L. SMITH, JUD GE

JOE RILEY, JUDGE
Exhibit 31.2**Certifications**I, James A. Kitchens, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of MDI, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated:August 14, 2006         By                         /s/ James A. Kitchens    James A. Kitchens    Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


                         ULTRAK, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INCOME
                   FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                            <C>         
Computation of Income per Share-Primary:

Net income                                                     $  2,034,433
                                                               
Less: Dividend requirements on preferred
    stock                                                           (29,302)
                                                               ------------

Net income allocable to common stockholders                    $  2,005,131
                                                               ============
Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding during the period                                14,022,852

Net effect of dilutive stock options and
warrants based on the treasury method using
average market price                                                532,202
                                                               ------------
Shares used for computation                                      14,555,054
                                                               ============

Income per share-primary                                       $        .14
                                                               ============
Computation of Income per Share-Assuming Full Dilution:

Net income                                                     $  2,034,433

Less: Dividend requirements on preferred stock                         --
                                                               ------------
Net income allocable to common stockholders                    $  2,034,433
                                                               ============
Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding during the period                                14,022,852

Net effect of dilutive stock options and
warrants based on the treasury method using
the greater of average or ending price                              532,202

Net effect of preferred stock conversion                            406,981
                                                               ------------
Shares used for computation                                      14,962,035
                                                               ============
Income per share-assuming full dilution                        $        .14
                                                               ============
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2007,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
      (the "Report"), the undersigned, Anthony L. Havens, as Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      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.








/s/
      Anthony L. Havens





Anthony
      L. Havens


Chief
      Executive Officer





Date:
      March 19, 2007
#### In the Matter of Town of Montauk, Appellant, v George E. Pataki et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 12, 2009;

decided February 12, 2009

Motion for reargument denied *[see*10 NY3d 823 (2008)].

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
906
CERTIFICATION OF CERTIFYING OFFICER





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-K of Exclusive
Apparel, Inc. for the Year Ended December 31, 2008, I, Sharon M. Lynch, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Exclusive Apparel, Inc. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:





1.   Such
Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Exclusive Apparel, Inc.





Dated:  March
27, 2009





EXCLUSIVE
APPAREL, INC.








By: /s/ Sharon M.
Lynch


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


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer and


Chief
Accounting Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit 

No. 14-1262 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

DELANO NELSON, 

Defendant, Appellant. 

ERRATA SHEET 

The opinion of this Court, issued on July 17th, 2015, is 

amended as follows: 

On page 6, line 21: "Flores-Machicote" should appear as 

"Flores-Machicote"