alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Agustin Torres VILLA; Herlinda Flores Ceja, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72776.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Donald Kenton Smith, Esq., Law Office of Donald Kenton Smith, Laguna Hills, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Leist, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Agustín Torres Villa and Herlinda Flores Ceja, natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. *See Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that the Petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the agency deprived them of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of their case does not state a colorable due process claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); *see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,*255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s summary affirmance violated their due *983process rights is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR  THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         645,122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                       953
<INVENTORY>                                    168,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               977,336
<PP&E>                                         394,139
<DEPRECIATION>                                 284,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,101,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,279,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,022,508
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,279
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,825,118)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,101,227
<SALES>                                         22,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,189
<CGS>                                           36,892
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               366,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (464,538)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (464,538)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (464,538)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     The undersigned officer of DATATRAK International, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify,to such officer’s knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006(the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.        Dated: August 7, 2006 /s/ Jeffrey A. Green   Jeffrey A. Green   Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1183

WANDA SCOTT,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(6:13-cv-00943-MGL)

Submitted: September 17, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wanda Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wanda Scott appeals the district court’s order accepting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her 

civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Scott v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:13-cv-00943-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 

2015). We deny all of Scott’s pending motions, including her 

motions for a court order, to unmoot, for change of venue, for 

recusal, and for public PACER. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Robert E. WILKERSON, Plaintiff, v. EAST HARBOR TRADING CORP., Defendant.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

July 21, 1954.

Aaron Weldman, New York City, for plaintiff.

Zock & Petrie, New York City, for defendant.

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion to strike the answer for failure of the defendant to appear for examination by “Guy H. Chadbourne, Master of the SS ‘Groton Trails’ ”. The defendant urges that Chadbourne is no longer Master of this ship, but is employed only as a watchman thereon.

A corporation is required to produce for examination only such officers or agents as come within the scope of Rule 26(d) (2), 28 U.S.C.A., i. e., those whose testimony would constitute admissions of the corporation. Garshol v. Atlantic Refining Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1951, 12 F.R.D. 204.

Rule 26(d) (2) refers to a person who “at the time of taking the deposition!’ is an officer or managing agent.

It appears to be undisputed that Chadbourne is not at the present time, and was not at the timé the deposition was noticed, a managing agent of the defendant, and, therefore, the defendant is under no obligation to produce him for examination. The plaintiff may, of course, take his deposition as a witness.

Motion denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RD16-10-000, RD17-5-000, and IC17-6-000 (FERC-725E)]

Errata Notice

    On August 15, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of revised 
information collection and request for comments on FERC-725E (Mandatory 
Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council), 
in Docket Nos. RD16-10-000, RD17-5-000, and IC17-6-000. This Errata 
Notice corrects multiple figures on page 13, in the table labeled FERC-
725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric 
Coordinating Council, Changes in Docket No. RD17-5-000.
    All of the changes described here occur in two separate rows under 
the column labeled Total Annual Burden Hours & Total Annual Cost ($) 
(3)*(4)=(5).: The entry in the row labeled Net Burden Change in Year 1 
(Due to Docket RD17-5) should be changed from +252 hrs. (increase) to 
+252 hrs.; $2,993.40 (increase). The entry in the row labeled Net 
Burden Change in Year 2 and ongoing (Due to Docket RD17-5) should be 
changed from the -621 hrs. (decrease) to +873 hrs.; $53,884.47 
(increase).

    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18237 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 925 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to convene a panel of citizens 

to make a recommendation to the Secretary regarding the likeness of 

a woman on the twenty dollar bill, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2015 

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

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to convene a panel 

of citizens to make a recommendation to the Secretary 

regarding the likeness of a woman on the twenty dollar 

bill, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Women on the Twenty 

5 Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 925 IS

1 SEC. 2. CITIZENS PANEL RELATING TO THE LIKENESS OF A 

2 WOMAN TO BE INCLUDED ON THE FACE OF 

3 THE $20 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. 

4 The 8th undesignated paragraph of section 16 of the 

5 Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 418) is amended by add6 ing at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘The Secretary 

7 of the Treasury shall convene a panel of private citizens 

8 of the United States to advise and make recommendations 

9 to the Secretary regarding the likeness of a woman to ap10 pear on the face of $20 Federal reserve notes. In carrying 

11 out the requirements of the preceding sentence, each of 

12 the Secretary and the panel shall consider and weigh input 

13 provided by the American people.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATIONS

In
connection with the annual report of Talisman Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harold N. Kvisle, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

By:

/s/ HAROLD N. KVISLEName:

Harold N. KvisleTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


DATEDat Calgary, Alberta, as of March 6, 2013.

---





CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the annual report of Talisman Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, L. Scott Thomson, Executive Vice-President,
Finance and 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:

By:

/s/ L. SCOTT THOMSONL. Scott Thomson
Executive Vice-President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer


DATEDat Calgary, Alberta, as of March 6, 2013.

---



QuickLinks
#### The Amsterdam.1

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

February 13, 1885.)

1. Limitation of Liability—Injunction.

In proceedings to limit tbe liability of a vessel, an injunction may issue to restrain the prosecution of suits in a state court.

2. Same—Personal Injury.

Claims for damages for personal injuries arising out of the stranding of a vessel are within the provisions of the statute limiting liability.

In Admiralty.

*Curzman dc Yeoman,*for the motion.

*J. Joachimsen,*for the Amsterdam.

1

 Reported by R. D. *&*Edward Benedict, Esqs., of tbe New York bar.

Brown, J.

The steamer Amsterdam having been lost by stranding, and proceedings being thereupon taken in this court by her owners to limit their liability upon payment into court of the appraised value of the vessel and her pending freight, an injunction was issued in accordance with the provisions of rule 54, restraining the prosecution of suits in the state courts. Several suitors, claiming damages for personal injuries arising more or less directly out of the stranding, have asked that the injunction be dissolved on the grounds that there is no statutory authority for the injunction itself; and, *secondly,*because claims for such personal damages are not within the statute. Buie 54 expressly declares that the owners, on complying with the statute, shall be entitled to an injunction order. It is not for this court to overrule the interpretation of the statute put upon it by the supreme court, or the practice they have sanctioned. This rule will not cut off sufficient opportunity to present every legal demand. The causes of action are purely maritime. This court, as a court of admiralty, is at least as appropriate as any other for the hearing of all questions arising in such cases; and every point that can he litigated anywhere can be presented and determined here.

The other question, as to whether personal injuries are within the provisions of the statute limiting liability, was carefully considered by Benedict, J., in the case of *The Epsilon,*6 Ben. 381, and afterwards by Choate, •!., in this court, in the case of the Seawahnaka, *(In re Long Island, etc., Transp. Co.*5 Fed. Rep. 599, 624;) and in both cases it was held, upon full consideration, that such actions are within the provisions of the act. The reasons for the conclusions there given commend themselves to my judgment, and this application must, therefore, be denied.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

 June 30, 2006 

ERRATA

Appeal No. 05-1412 

Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters

Decided: June 28, 2006. Precedential 

 In Judge Newman's dissenting opinion from the denial of the petition for rehearing 

en banc, the following change is made: 

At page 2, third line from the bottom of the slip opinion, after "printed publication 

in" insert -- this or --.
Elizabeth A. Young, CSR, RPR 

Official Court Reporter 

P. O. Box 747 

Belton, Texas 76513 

254 933-5268 

January 23, 2015 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle 

Clerk, Court of Appeals 

P. O. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711-2547 

tel 512 463-1733 

fax 512 463-1685 

In re: State vs Devin Dasean Simmons 

 COA 03-14-00707-CR 

TC # 71988 

Attn: Chris Knowles 

Dear Chris, 

I am requesting an extension to complete this reporter's 

record by February 9, 2015. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Elizabeth A. Young 

Elizabeth A. Young
**Exhibit 31**

**SEMT 2013-6**

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)Certification. 

I, Christopher J. Abate, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-6 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Actperiodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicingagreements in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Cenlar, FSBas Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent. 

Date:April 1, 2019 

/s/ Christopher J.Abate                                                         

Signature 

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Financial Officer 

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Under
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 10, 2006
    
    /s/ GREGORY B. KENNYGregory B. KennyChief Executive OfficerDate: May 10, 2006
    
    /s/ CHRISTOPHER F. VIRGULAKChristopher F. VirgulakChief Financial Officer
  54
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

DOMINGO COLON-MONTANEZ, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

STEPHEN B. LIEBERMAN, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 104 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The 

Prothonotary is directed to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of N

. S

. , a child, * From the 3 2 6 th District Court

o f Taylor County

Trial Court No. 9055

- CX

.

No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 1 86

- C V * October 31 , 2019

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cau se and concludes that there

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Health
Fitness Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2005 (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Wesley W. Winnekins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

/s/ Wesley W. Winnekins

Wesley W. Winnekins
Chief Financial Officer
May 16, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41049-41050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18267]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

[RR02800000, 17XR0680A3, RX178689471000000]


Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Shasta Dam Fish 
Passage Evaluation, California; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice to reopen comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is reopening the 
public comment period on the scope of the draft environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for the Shasta Dam Fish Passage Evaluation.

DATES: The comment period for the scope of the draft EIS published June 
15, 2017 (82 FR 27522), is reopened. Comments should be received on or 
before September 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments to Ms. Carolyn Bragg, Natural 
Resources Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation, Bay-Delta Office, 801 I 
Street, Suite 140, Sacramento, CA 95814-2536; or by email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#56353424373131162325342478313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="187b7a6a797f7f586d6b7a6a367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>; or via facsimile to (916) 414-2439.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Bragg, (916) 414-2433, or 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5868797848282a590968797cb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7c4c5d5c6c0c0e7d2d4c5d589c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 15, 2017, Reclamation published a 
notice in the Federal Register announcing its intent to prepare a draft 
EIS. Since then, Reclamation has received a formal request from the

[[Page 41050]]

public requesting more time to comment on the scope of the draft EIS. 
This notice reopens that comment period for 30 days.

Public Disclosure

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Dated: July 27, 2017.
Travis B. Aberle,
Assistant Regional Director of Business Services.
[FR Doc. 2017-18267 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4332-90-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>