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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7335

DERRICK T. BAILEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LARRY DAIL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:14-hc-02048-F)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick T. Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick T. Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Bailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0041

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES MICHAEL PARKER, 

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including July 18, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve its response

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 9 2023

06/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0041
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 Ashraf M. Dahod and Paul J. Milbury hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President, Operations and Chief Financial Officer, respectively of Starent Networks, Corp. (the
"Company"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: February 29, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ASHRAF M. DAHODAshraf M. Dahod
President and Chief Executive Officer                 
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 29, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/PAUL J. MILBURYPaul J. Milbury
Vice President, Operations and
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     JUN-30-1998   
<PERIOD-START>                        JUL-01-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                  1,083,229
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                           4,954,743
<ALLOWANCES>                              259,000
<INVENTORY>                             6,851,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       12,710,687
<PP&E>                                  7,842,477
<DEPRECIATION>                          6,314,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         21,234,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   4,580,952
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   97,679
<OTHER-SE>                             10,087,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           21,234,797
<SALES>                                17,765,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       17,765,373
<CGS>                                  11,785,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           6,715,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        158,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (894,202)
<INCOME-TAX>                               50,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (944,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (944,682)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.11)
        


</TABLE>
#### Alejandro B. BACARAY; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71424.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Elizabeth A. Olson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro B. Bacaray and Lilia Bacaray, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum and withhold*774ing of removal, and request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that petitioners did not establish eligibility for asylum because they testified that they relocated to Manila, where they lived for five years without incident. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000).

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Petitioners failed to establish a CAT claim because they did not show that it was more likely than not that they would be tortured if they returned to the Philippines. *See Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001).

Finally, because petitioners did not suffer any prejudice from the IJ’s conduct, their due process claim also fails. *See Hassan v. INS, 927*F.2d 465, 469 (9th Cir.1991).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 541 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to clarify 

the rate of duty for certain gloves. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2005 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to clarify the rate of duty for certain gloves. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN NON-KNIT GLOVES DESIGNED FOR 

4 USE BY AUTO MECHANICS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 62 of the Harmonized 

6 Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by insert7 ing in numerical sequence, the following new subheading 

8 with the article description for such subheading having the 

9 same degree of indentation as the article description for 

10 subheading 6216.00.43: 
2 

•S 541 IS 

‘‘ 6216.00.45 Mechanics’ gloves .................. 2.8% Free (A,AU,CA,CL 

E,IL,J,JO,MX,SG) 

45% 

’’. 

1 (b) DEFINITION OF MECHANICS’ GLOVES.—The ad2 ditional U.S. Notes to chapter 62 of the Harmonized Tar3 iff Schedule of the United States are amended by adding 

4 at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘3. For purposes of subheading 6216.00.45, the term ‘me6 chanics’ gloves’ means gloves especially designed for the 

7 use of professional auto racing teams and general auto8 motive mechanics, with the following: synthetic leather 

9 palms and fingers; fourchettes of synthetic leather, nylon, 

10 or elastomeric yarn; backs comprising either one layer of 

11 knitted elastomeric fabric classifiable under heading 5407 

12 or three layers with the outer layer of knitted elastomeric 

13 fabric classifiable under heading 5407; a center layer of 

14 foam and the inner layer of tricot classifiable under head15 ing 5903 (whether or not including a thermoplastic rubber 

16 logo or pad on the back); and elastic wrist strips with 

17 molded thermoplastic rubber hook-and-loop enclosures.’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section apply to articles entered, or withdrawn from 

20 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

21 enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audie Craig SINGLETARY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-11392

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

Yvette Rhodes, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas H. Ostrander, Bradenton, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

*969Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas H. Ostrander, appointed counsel for Audie Craig Singletary in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Singletary’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### Capps v. NW Sign Indus. of N.C., Inc.

Case below: 185 N.C. App.-(21 August 2007)

No. 383P05-2

Pit’s Motion to Seal Response to Defs’ PDR (COA06-1297)

Denied 11/08/07
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Global Gold
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lester
Caesar, the Chief Financial 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.


Dated: August 12, 2005


                                                     By: /s/ Lester Caesar
                                                         -----------------------
                                                             Lester Caesar
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### Ramsey v. Southern Indus. Constr’rs, Inc.

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 25

No. 485P06

Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA04-1639)

Denied 12/14/06
#### Maund *et al. v.*Maund *et al.*

Where a will was proved in common form and the executors thereafter filed in the superior court a petition for leave to sell certain lands of the testator for the purpose of paying his indebtedness, there was no error in sustaining a demurrer to an answer to the executor’s petition, filed by certain heirs of the testator, the answer alleging, in substance, that the deceased had died intestate and that the paper alleged to be his will had never been admitted to probate in solemn form. The executors had the right to proceed, after the probate in common form, with the due administration of the estate, and the issue of *devisavit vel non*could not be thus collaterally raised.

April 9, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*480Petition. Before Judge Butt. Talbot superior court. March term, 1898.

J. H. Worrill and Thornton & McMichael, for plaintiffs in error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    130133
<OTHER-SE>                                 (130133)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 23, 2015

p0416

Order 

Clerk

April 23, 2015

150683

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 150683

COA: 312409

Wayne CC: 11-008725-FC

JIMMY EARL McCASKILL,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Cesar M. Garcia, 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, to the best of my 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: May 9, 2006

|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|/s/ CESAR M. GARCIA                    
|Cesar M. Garcia Chief Executive
Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Ace. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit 32.2

                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 Cubic Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB/A  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2005 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, CFO,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

Date: March 22, 2006                               Signature: /s/ James L. Busby
                                                             -------------------
                                                             James L. Busby, CFO
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11017]



[[Page 22174]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; 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 Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine, Special Emphasis Panel, CAM Approaches in the 
Management of HIV Disease and Its Complications (R01).
    Date: June 12, 2009.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NCCAM, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ray Bramhall, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107262717d78717c7c62507d71797c3e7e79783e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e1c0c1f13161f12120c3e131f17125010171650191108">[email protected]</span></a>.


    Dated: May 5, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-11017 Filed 5-11-09; 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>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRENDA PARKER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-597 (UNA)

) 

JOHN NGUYEN et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a motion, ECF No. 5, which the Court has liberally 

construed as brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief 

from the dismissal order entered on March 9, 2020, ECF No. 4. This case was dismissed on the 

jurisdictional ground that this Court cannot review the decisions of its sister court in Indiana. 

See Mem. Op., ECF No. 3. The instant motion in no way suggests a cure for the jurisdictional 

defect. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will be denied by separate order. 

SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE: June 11, 2020

6/11/2020