alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commission Meeting Schedule for June 18, 2014","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7QECBmNt35\"><a href=\"\/commission-meeting-schedule-for-june-18-2014\/\">Commission Meeting Schedule for June 18, 2014<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-meeting-schedule-for-june-18-2014\/embed\/#?secret=7QECBmNt35\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Meeting Schedule for June 18, 2014” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"7QECBmNt35\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6523

CARL D. NEWTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden; UNITED STATES PAROLE

COMMISSION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-02-419-2)

Submitted: July 8, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl D. Newton, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; George

Maralan Kelly, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl D. Newton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

 , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Newton 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terral James TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-31194

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 9, 2010.

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, J. Collin Sims, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark David Plaisance, Baker, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

*963PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Terral James Taylor has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Taylor has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Taylor’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Taylor’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Paragon Financial Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), George Deehan, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
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) 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: August 23, 2004 |  | By:    |  | /s/ George O. Deehan   
|                      |  | Name:  |  | George O. Deehan       
|                      |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

*Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement:*66 FR 63422, December 6, 2001.                 

*Status:*                     Closed meeting.                 

*Place:*                     450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC                 

*Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting:*                     Thursday, December 13, 2001 at 10:00 a.m.                 

*Change in the Meeting:*                     Time Change.                 

The closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2001 at 10 a.m. has been changed to Friday, December 14, 2001 at 10 a.m. 

Dated: December 12, 2001. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-31031 Filed 12-12-01; 4:02 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"Office of the Managing Director (OMD) - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9ew5BOhH0F\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/about\/bureaus-offices\/office-of-the-managing-director\/\">Office of the Managing Director (OMD)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/about\/bureaus-offices\/office-of-the-managing-director\/embed\/#?secret=9ew5BOhH0F\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Office of the Managing Director (OMD)” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"9ew5BOhH0F\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"About OMD The Office of the Managing Director is responsible for: Administrative Offices Office of Budget and Finance The Office of Budget and Finance is responsible for preparing the agency\u2019s budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget and to the Congress, and managing subsequent budgets, and coordinating such efforts as the collecting of […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Public Forum on U.S. Port Congestion – Mid-Atlantic and Northeast","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"IrJpWrIwSf\"><a href=\"\/public-forum-on-u-s-port-congestion-mid-atlantic-and-northeast\/\">Public Forum on U.S. Port Congestion – Mid-Atlantic and Northeast<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/public-forum-on-u-s-port-congestion-mid-atlantic-and-northeast\/embed\/#?secret=IrJpWrIwSf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Public Forum on U.S. Port Congestion – Mid-Atlantic and Northeast” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"IrJpWrIwSf\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 32

                            Certification pursuant to
        Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code


         In connection with the amendment to quarterly  report of BF Acquisition
Group IV, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended July
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  the undersigned  William R. Colucci,  being the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  does hereby  certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section
1350 that, to my knowledge:


         1. The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


         2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.



Date:  September 28, 2004


                                                /s/
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350; it is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act, and is not to be  incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.



                                      -13-
#### Sergey M. USMANOV, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72698.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 21, 2008.

*489Howard R. Davis, Esq., Law Offices of Barbara J. Darnell, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Russell J.E. Verby, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *489R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sergey M. Usmanov, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen of Tajikistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel and to reapply for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Singh v. Gonzales,*416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005), we grant in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion when it failed fully to address Usmanov’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on prior counsel’s failure to file Us*490manov’s first motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status prior to the expiration of his voluntary departure period and adequately to present the bona fides of his marriage in the first motion to reopen. *See Singh,*416 F.3d at 1009 (remanding in light of BIA’s failure to address ineffective assistance of counsel claim). We remand for the BIA to reconsider Usmanov’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim and to consider whether prior counsel’s performance warrants equitable tolling of the numerical limits on Usmanov’s motion to reopen. *See Varela v. INS,*204 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir.2000) (tolling numerical limit where counsel filed a worthless first motion).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Usmanov failed to provide sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Tajikistan. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *see also Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000) (the BIA does not abuse its discretion unless it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to law”). Contrary to Usmanov’s contention, the BIA considered the evidence and adequately explained its decision. *Cf. Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005) (remanding where BIA stated only that petitioner’s motion to reopen was denied and provided no further explanation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, 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 my knowledge:



|/s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerAugust 14, 2003 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
# Fourth Court of Appeals

S an Antonio, Texas

December 28, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00366

- CR & 04

- 17

- 00367

- CR

Roger Trudell Davis

, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR3461 & 2015CR6145

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief i s due

February 5, 2018.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of December, 2017

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit  32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL  OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The  undersigned, Francis Chiew, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of I-Level Media Group Incorporated (the “Company”), each hereby  certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of  1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on  Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the financial  condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  | December 19, 2011                                                                                                                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                             |
| By:    | */s/ Francis      Chiew*Francis ChiewChief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer    and sole director |

A signed original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document  authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear  in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required  by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the  Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

----
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00299

- CV

IN RE MARIA GARCIA RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------
The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus a nd is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER

, DAUPHINOT , and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 29, 2013

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).