alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Narinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 05-71987, 05-76164.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed April 30, 2008.

Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Hillel Smith Fax, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Narinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his first and second motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *See Bhasin v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s first motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it 20 months after the BIA’s final decision. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Singh also failed to demonstrate that he qualified for the changed country conditions exception to the 90-day time limit. *See id.; see also Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”). The BIA’s denial of Singh’s first motion to reopen was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Singh’s second motion to reopen was numerically barred. *See*8 *584C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (generally permitting one motion to reopen to be filed).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Mark ANTHONY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Todd HENRY, Defendant—Appellee, and Sacramento County Sheriffs Department; et al., Defendants.

No. 06-15396.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*579Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed April 30, 2008.

Mark Anthony, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Jeri Lynn Pappone, Esq., Longyear O’Dea and Lavra, Kelley Suzanne Elkins Kern, Esq., Cook Brown LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Anthony appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment after a jury trial, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force by an arresting officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings, *Tritchler v. County of Lake,*358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit Anthony’s medical records into evidence for impeachment purposes because Anthony failed to authenticate the records. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) (requiring custodian or other qualified witness to authenticate records).

Anthony’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Anthony’s motion for appointment of counsel and request for judicial notice are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2923 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to include aliens passing 

in transit through the United States to board a vessel on which the 

alien will perform ship-to-ship liquid cargo transfer operations within 

a class of nonimmigrant aliens, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2021 

Ms. GARCIA of Texas (for herself, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. 

VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. CLOUD, and Mr. PALAZZO) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to include 

aliens passing in transit through the United States to 

board a vessel on which the alien will perform shipto-ship liquid cargo transfer operations within a class 

of nonimmigrant aliens, 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 ‘‘Energy Security and 

5 Lightering Independence Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2923 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF NONIMMIGRANT IN TRANSIT. 

2 Subparagraph (C) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immi3 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is 

4 amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(C)(i) an alien in immediate and contin6 uous transit through the United States not to 

7 exceed 29 days; 

8 ‘‘(ii) an alien who qualifies as a person en9 titled to pass in transit to and from the United 

10 Nations Headquarters District and foreign 

11 countries, under the provisions of paragraphs 

12 (3), (4), and (5) of section 11 of the Head13 quarters Agreement with the United Nations 

14 (61 Stat. 758); or 

15 ‘‘(iii) an alien passing in transit through 

16 the United States to board a vessel on which 

17 the alien will perform ship-to-ship liquid cargo 

18 transfer operations to or from another vessel 

19 engaged in foreign trade for a period not to ex20 ceed 180 days.’’. 

21 SEC. 3. CONDITIONAL PERMITS TO LAND TEMPORARILY. 

22 Section 252(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

23 Act (8 U.S.C. 1282(a)) is amended— 

24 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

25 end; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2923 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) 180 days, if the immigration officer is sat5 isfied that the crewman intends to depart, within the 

6 period for which the crewman is permitted to land, 

7 on either the same vessel or on a vessel other than 

8 the vessel on which the crewman arrived and that 

9 the crewman will perform ship-to-ship liquid cargo 

10 transfer operations to or from any other vessel en11 gaged in foreign trade during such period.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Willie Joe CALDWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael McCALL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-7209.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Dec. 6, 2013.

Willie Joe Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, Office of the United States Attorney, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

*356Dismissed by unpublished PER • CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Joe Caldwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caldwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 15.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 of TAM S.A. (File No. 333-147020), TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. (File No. 333-147020-01) and TAM Capital Inc. (File No. 333-147020-02), of our report dated April 13, 2011 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F of TAM S.A., TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. and TAM Capital Inc. (together, “TAM”) for the year ended December 31, 2010. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores IndependentesPricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores IndependentesSão Paulo, Brazil
   May 13, 2011


---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50621.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 28, 2010.

Gregory Lesser, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Antonio Navarro appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*172Navarro contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) when it failed to resolve a dispute regarding the facts underlying a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight. But Navarro never argued that there were specific factual errors in the presentence report. Accordingly, the district court did not violate Rule 32(i)(3)(B). *See United States v. Stoterau,*524 F.3d 988, 1011 (9th Cir.2008) (“Only specific factual objections trigger Rule 32(i)(3)(B).”). To the extent Navarro now challenges the factual basis for the enhancement, the district court did not plainly err. *See United States v. Waknine,*543 F.3d 546, 553 n. 3 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 13.4  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ricardo Froes Alves Ferreira, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 23, 2012 By:

   /s/ Ricardo Froes Alves FerreiraRicardo Froes Alves FerreiraChief Financial Officer


---
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home
 Licensing and Certification
 Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Status Changes
 On this page
OTI License Applications


2024
2023
2022
2021OTI License Revocations and Surrenders


Current Revocations and Surrenders
Previous Updates



This page contains notices on the status of Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) licenses. OTI License applications filed with the FMC and any later revocations, suspensions, surrenders, will be listed here.



This list may be used in combination with the List of FMC Licensed & Bonded OTIs. Notice: After 1/22/2020 you must refer to the OTI LIST to determine if a license has been reissued.



OTI License Applications


2024


April 22, 2024April 15, 2024April 8, 2024April 1, 2024March 25, 2024March 18, 2024March 11, 2024March 4, 2024Previous Page

1
2
3
4

Next Page



2023


August 28, 2023August 21, 2023August 14, 2023August 7, 2023July 31, 2023July 24, 2023July 17, 2023July 10, 2023Previous Page

1
2
3
4
5
...
7

Next Page



2022


August 29, 2022August 22, 2022August 15, 2022August 8, 2022August 1, 2022July 25, 2022July 18, 2022July 11, 2022Previous Page

1
2
3
4
5
...
7

Next Page



2021


August 30, 2021August 23, 2021August 16, 2021August 9, 2021August 2, 2021July 19, 2021July 12, 2021July 6, 2021Previous Page

1
2
3
4

Next Page







OTI License Revocations and Surrenders


Current Revocations and Surrenders


June 30, 2024 [PDF, 84 KB]



May 31, 2024 [PDF, 78 KB]



April 30, 2024 [PDF, 123 KB]



March 31, 2024 [PDF, 124 KB]



February 29, 2024 [PDF, 121 KB]



January 31, 2024 [PDF, 123 KB]






Previous Updates


Archived OTI License Revocations and Surrenders Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the
      undersigned, Ofer Segev, Chief Financial Officer of Ness Technologies, Inc.,
      a
      Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge,
      that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 of
      the
      Company (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 Company.




Date:
                May
                    12, 2008
                /s/OFER
                    SEGEVOfer
                      SegevChief
                      Financial
                      Officer
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-5T2
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-5T2


     The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series
(the "Agreement") that:

(i)   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                       Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 25, 2022

NO. 03-21-00086-CV

Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant

v.

Hofer Builders, Inc. and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

REVERSED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on January 22, 2021. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and renders 

judgment declaring that Texas Mutual Insurance Company is not liable to Hofer Builders, Inc. or 

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company for the Louisiana workers’ compensation benefits 

paid to David Hope. The appellees shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court 

and in the court below.
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION 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 his capacity as an officer of Community Bancorp Inc. (the
Company) that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.





Date August 8, 2002





/s/     Thomas E. SwansonThomas E. Swanson President and Chief
Executive Officer








Date August 8, 2002





/s/     L. Bruce Mills, Jr.L. Bruce Mills, Jr. Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 3.1c


Delaware





The
First State






I,
HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF "MARINE PARK HOLDINGS, INC.", CHANGING ITS NAME FROM "MARINE PARK HOLDINGS,
INC." TO "NEWCARDIO, INC.", FILED IN THIS
OFFICE ON THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY, A.D. 20085, AT 5:35 O'CLOCK
P.M.





A FILED
COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEW CASTLE COUNTY RECORDER OF
DEEDS.






















CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION





OF





MARINE
PARK HOLDINGS, INC.




It is
hereby certified that:





1. The name of the corporation
(hereinafter called the "corporation") is MARINE PARK HOLDINGS,
INC.





2. The
certificate of incorporation of the corporation is hereby amended by striking
out ARTICLE 1 thereof and by substituting in lieu of said Article the following
new Article:





ARTICLE
1: The name of the corporation is NEWCARDIO, INC.





3. The
amendment of the certificate of incorporation herein certified has been duly
adopted and written consent has been given in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.





Signed on
January 14, 2008




/s/ Branislav
      VajdicBranislav
      VajdicPresident
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
             RASC SERIES 2006-EMX3 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of April 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"), among
Residential  Asset Securities  Corporation,  as depositor,  Residential  Funding
Company, LLC (formerly Residential Funding Corporation), as master servicer, and
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director