alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6023
SAMUEL C. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-3375) Submitted: February 19, 2004 De cided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel C. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Samuel C. Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to timely file objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Davis failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER OMAR ROMERO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71746

Agency No. A077-428-686

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Alexander Omar Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding Romero abandoned his

application for relief and denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8

FILED

JUL 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a motion to

continue and the decision to deem an application waived. Taggar v. Holder, 736

F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo claims of due process violations

in immigration proceedings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir.

2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Romero abandoned his

application for relief when he did not file it by the deadline the IJ imposed. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (an IJ “may set and extend time limits for the filing of

applications” and if an application “is not filed within the time set by the [IJ], the

opportunity to file that application . . . shall be deemed waived”); Taggar, 736 F.3d

at 889 (petitioner waived application where she did not file it by the due date the IJ

set). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in upholding the IJ’s denial of

Romero’s motion for a continuance where he had already been given multiple

continuances and did not show good cause for another continuance. See VargasHernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007).

Finally, we deny Romero’s due process claims, including his contentions

regarding the IJ’s conduct. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process challenge to proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-71746
Reporting Instructions for Creditable Sickness Payments

Chapter 5: Employer Coverage

1

Coverage Status

A Supplemental Sick Pay Plan payer may be a covered employer under the Railroad Retirement 

Act (RRA) or a third party that disburses Supplemental Sick Pay. A third party payer which 

disburses creditable sickness payments may or may not be a covered employer under the RRA. 

The RRB's Office of Audit and Compliance investigates and obtains coverage information from 

possible covered employers. The factual background information is then forwarded to the RRB's 

General Counsel for review. The General Counsel then submits a written recommendation 

concerning the coverage or non-coverage of the employer/employee to the three-member Board 

for a formal determination. A coverage determination is issued when a majority of the Board 

Members agree on a decision. The employer/employee has the right within a year of the decision 

to seek reconsideration from the Board.).

Change in Coverage Status

Under the law, it is a payer's responsibility to notify the RRB of any changes which affect its 

coverage status. The coverage status is then reconsidered. Send a notice of a possible coverage 

status change to:

Office of Audit and Compliance

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

844 North Rush Street

Chicago, IL 60611-1275

Phone: (312) 751-4679 

Implementation of Law 

Because the instructions are based on the implementation of the RRA and the regulations of the 

Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), legal citations are in some instances included for reference. A 

copy of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 may be purchased from the Superintendent of 

Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. You may also purchase a copy 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 20, Parts 1 to 399, which includes the requirements and 

forms prescribed for reporting to the RRB and the penalties for failure to report. This is published 

annually, usually during June, with revisions through March 31 of that year. In addition, a library 

with a public documents section may have copies of the RRA and regulations, or may be able to 

secure loan copies from another library.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 920 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 920

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 14, 2020.
    Resolved, That House Resolution 891, agreed to March 11, 2020 (as most 
recently amended by House Resolution 911, agreed to March 27, 2020), is 
amended--
            (1) in section 7, by striking ``April 19, 2020'' and inserting ``May 
        3, 2020'';
            (2) in section 10, by striking ``April 19, 2020'' and inserting 
        ``May 3, 2020''; and
            (3) in section 11, by striking ``April 20, 2020'' and inserting 
        ``May 4, 2020''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Hardesty 

, J. 

Parraguirre 

further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay. 1 

See Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World 

Airways, Inc., 966 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the automatic 

stay does not preclude dismissal of an appeal so long as dismissal is 

"consistent with the purpose of the statute [11 U.S.C. §362(a)"]; Dean v. 

Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a 

post-bankruptcy petition dismissal will violate the automatic stay "where 

the decision to dismiss first requires the court to consider other issues 

presented by or related to the underlying case"). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. This dismissal is without 

prejudice to appellants' right to move for reinstatement of this appeal 

upon either the lifting of the bankruptcy stay or final resolution of the 

bankruptcy proceedings, if appellants deem such a motion appropriate. 2 

It is so ORDERED. 

/ , J. 

'The automatic stay provides a debtor "with protection against 

hungry creditors" and gives it a "breathing spell from its creditors" by 

stopping all collection efforts. Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 

754, 755 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, it assures creditors "that the debtor's 

other creditors are not racing to various courthouses to pursue 

independent remedies to drain the debtor's assets." Id. At 755-6. 

2Any such motion for reinstatement of the appeal must be filed 

within 60 days of the lifting of the bankruptcy stay or conclusion of 

bankruptcy proceedings, whichever occurs earlier. 

2 
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Robert F. Saint-Aubin, Settlement Judge 

Hutchison & Steffen, LLC 

Leavitt Sully & Rivers 

Denton Lopez & Cho 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3
# Result 6.3
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 93 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the territories 

of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a part of the sovereign state of 

Georgia and condemning the decision by the Syrian Arab Republic to 

recognize these territories as independent of Georgia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Mr. ROONEY of Florida (for himself, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Mr. FITZPATRICK) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a part 

of the sovereign state of Georgia and condemning the 

decision by the Syrian Arab Republic to recognize these 

territories as independent of Georgia. 

Whereas the United States established diplomatic relations 

with Georgia in 1992 and codified those relations in the 

2009 United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership; 

Whereas Georgia has been a committed partner of the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and has contributed significant troops and resources to the NATO misVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:46 Jan 30, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR93.IH HR93

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 93 IH 

sions in Afghanistan and the Multi-National Force in 

Iraq; 

Whereas Georgia maintains peaceful relations with its neighbors in the Caucasus region and has been a reliable partner in promoting peace and democracy in the Eurasia region; 

Whereas the United States and its partners must stand up 

against the Russian Federation’s expansion into territories of the former Soviet Union; 

Whereas the Russian Federation violates international law by 

continuously occupying sovereign territory in Georgia and 

has on multiple occasions meddled in the affairs of Georgia during the war in Abkhazia from 1992–1993 and 

during the Russo-Georgian war in August 2008; 

Whereas only 5 member states of the United Nations recognize Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent of Georgia; 

Whereas the Syrian Arab Republic is a failed client-state of 

the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran; 

and 

Whereas the Russian Federation, in its effort to disrupt the 

West and its allies, will use failed states such as the Syrian Arab Republic to push its geopolitical agenda and 

lend credibility to the territories it illegally occupies: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes Georgia’s sovereignty and terri3 torial integrity, and reaffirms that the regions of 

4 Abkhazia and South Ossetia, currently occupied by 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 93 IH 

1 the Russian Federation, are territories of Georgia; 

2 and 

3 (2) condemns the decision by the Syrian Arab 

4 Republic, which is a client state of the Russian Fed5 eration, to recognize the independence of the regions 

6 of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 608 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 608

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Republic 
 of India should be a permanent member of the United Nations Security 
                                Council.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2019

 Mr. Pallone (for himself, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mrs. Watson 
Coleman, Ms. Meng, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Mr. Bera) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Republic 
 of India should be a permanent member of the United Nations Security 
                                Council.

Whereas there are currently five permanent members of the United Nations 
        Security Council;
Whereas the Republic of India is the second most populous country in the world 
        with almost 1.35 billion citizens and it will likely become the most 
        populous country in the near future;
Whereas India is the world's largest democracy;
Whereas India has the third largest standing army in the world, the largest 
        volunteer army in the world, and has demonstrated a strong commitment to 
        promoting regional and global peace by providing tens of thousands of 
        troops to United Nations-mandated peacekeeping missions;
Whereas India has been elected seven times as a non-permanent member of the 
        United Nations Security Council, and, in 2010, a majority of the United 
        Nations General Assembly elected India to be the Asian representative to 
        the United Nations Security Council; and
Whereas the United States-India relationship is an essential partnership 
        supporting global economic and strategic policies: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the Republic of India's inclusion as a 
        permanent member of the United Nations Security Council; and
            (2) urges the Administration to work with members of the 
        United Nations to effect India's entry as a permanent member of 
        the United Nations Security Council.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 106 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 106

To reauthorize and extend funding for community health centers and the 
                     National Health Service Corps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 2019

  Mr. Blunt (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
   Gardner, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
Menendez, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Tester, Ms. Collins, 
 Mr. King, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Jones) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize and extend funding for community health centers and the 
                     National Health Service Corps.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Health Investment, 
Modernization, and Excellence Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND NATIONAL 
              HEALTH SERVICE CORPS.

    Section 221 of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 
2015 is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Additional funding.--In addition to amounts 
        appropriated under section 10503(b) of the Patient Protection 
        and Affordable Care Act, there are appropriated to the CHC Fund 
        the following:
                    ``(A) For purposes of paragraph (1) of such 
                section--
                            ``(i) for fiscal year 2020, $4,200,000,000;
                            ``(ii) for fiscal year 2021, 
                        $4,400,000,000;
                            ``(iii) for fiscal year 2022, 
                        $4,600,000,000;
                            ``(iv) for fiscal year 2023, 
                        $4,800,000,000; and
                            ``(v) for fiscal year 2024, $5,000,000,000.
                    ``(B) For purposes of paragraph (2) of such 
                section--
                            ``(i) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 2020;
                            ``(ii) $340,000,000 for fiscal year 2021;
                            ``(iii) $355,000,000 for fiscal year 2022;
                            ``(iv) $370,000,000 for fiscal year 2023; 
                        and
                            ``(v) $385,000,000 for fiscal year 2024.''; 
                        and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``and fiscal year 2107'' 
        and inserting ``, fiscal year 2020, fiscal year 2021, fiscal 
        year 2022, fiscal year 2023, and fiscal year 2024''.
                                 <all>
```
«<* - f»

NO .13*6(1

in the RECEIVED

COURT OF GRIPPAL APPEALS

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AT AUSTIN/ TEXAS JUL 24 2015

meJ.

STEPHEN WILLIAM SIROS, Petitioner* FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

v.

24 ^-3

THE STATE OF TEXAS/ Respondent

Abel Acosta, Clerk

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS/

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS, NO. 01-14-00288-CR, TRIAL COURT CASE

337TH DISTRICT COURT/ HARRIS COUNTY/TEXAS, NO. 1323111

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Petitioner Stephen William Siros hereby respectfully requests an

extension of time to file his Petition for Discretionary Review

up to and including September 30/ 2015. An extension is needed in

order to retain private counsel/ or/ in the alternative prepare

a Pro Se Petition.

This motion is made in good faith arid not merely for dilatory

purposes.

WHEREFORE/ PREMISES CONSIDERED/ Petitioner requests that this

motion be GRANTED.

Dated: July 18, 2015

•H STlfPHEN WILLIAM SIROS

4M^Jfe>
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the combined predecessors of the
Partnership.
 Date:
November 14, 2006
    
    /s/ MICHAEL E. MERCERMichael E. MercerChief Financial Officer of EV Management LLC,general partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,general partner of EV Energy Partners, L.P.
@conference{1216076,
  author = {Daniel Wines and Kevin Garrity and Tian Xie and Kamal Choudhary},
  title = {Forward and Inverse design of high $T_C$ superconductors with DFT and deep learning},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-04-21 04:04:00},
  publisher = {ML4Materials from Molecules to Materials (Virtual), Kigali , RW},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936649},
  language = {en},
}
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906**

**of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Primoris ServicesCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Peter J. Moerbeek, Executive Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered thiscertificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.

 
| Date:  August 9, 2010 | /s/  PETER J. MOERBEEK                                                              |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Peter  J. Moerbeek*Executive Vice President, Chief Financial  Officer and Director* |

 

----
ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015-245

JULY TERM, 2015

People's United Bank } APPEALED FROM:

}

}

 v. } Superior Court, Windham Unit,

} Civil Division

Michael S. Cornish }

} DOCKET NO. 349-7-13 Wmcv

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

The record in this foreclosure proceeding discloses that the trial court granted summary 

judgment in favor of plaintiff in January 2015, and entered a final judgment and decree of 

foreclosure in May 2015. Defendant moved for permission to appeal, as required by 12 V.S.A. § 

4601 and V.R.C.P. 80.1(m), which the trial court denied on June 12, 2015. Defendant filed a 

notice of appeal directly with this Court on June 26, 2015. 

Pursuant to Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(a)(4), review in this Court of a 

superior court order denying permission to appeal is initiated by filing, within ten days of the 

order of denial, “a motion . . . with a statement containing: (A) the questions to be raised on 

appeal; (B) the facts necessary to understand the questions; and (C) the reasons why an appeal 

should be permitted.” Any “adverse party may file and serve an answer in opposition” within 

five days. V.R.A.P. 6(a)(6). The matter will then “be determined on the motion and answer 

without oral argument unless the Supreme Court orders otherwise.” V.R.A.P. 6(a)(7).

Defendant has failed to file a timely motion for permission to appeal with this Court 

setting forth the questions to be raised, the facts necessary to understand them, and the reasons 

why an appeal should be permitted, as required by V.R.A.P. 6(a)(4). Accordingly, the notice of 

appeal in this matter is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. 

BY THE COURT:

John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

Beth Robinson, Associate Justice

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice