alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hamilton Wokoma EGEJURU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; Department of Homeland Security; Immigration & Customs Enforcement; San Diego Correctional Facility; Joe Easterling, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-55367.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 19, 2008.*

Filed May 22, 2008.

Hamilton Wokoma Egejuru, San Pedro, CA, pro se.

Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Erika Johnson-Brooks, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hamilton Wokoma Egejuru, a legal permanent resident, was placed in removal proceedings because he committed aggravated felonies. He filed this habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred by denying his application for defer*517ral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The district court dismissed his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

Prior to the REAL ID Act of 2005, “criminal aliens could challenge their removal orders in a habeas proceeding given the absence of [another] forum.” *Singh v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 969, 976 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotation omitted). The Act changed that regime effective May 11, 2005 “by eliminating all district court habeas jurisdiction over orders of removal.” *Iasu v. Smith,*511 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir.2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)). “Review of such orders was placed exclusively in the courts of appeals, by way of petitions for review.” *Rafaelano v. Wilson,*471 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir.2006). Because Egejuru filed his habeas petition after the effective date of the REAL ID Act, the district court lacked jurisdiction and therefore properly dismissed the petition. *See Puri v. Gonzales,*464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.2006).

Although Egejuru also filed a petition for review of the BIA’s decision in this court, that petition was not timely filed and we therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *Egejuru v. Gonzales,*No. 05-76288 (unpublished order). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review Egejuru’s renewed challenge to his removal order. *See Magtanong v. Gonzales,*494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir.2007) (noting “the 30-day filing period is mandatory and jurisdictional”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,518
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,849
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,367)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,504)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,504)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3254 

To terminate Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2021 

Mr. LOUDERMILK (for himself, Mr. MEUSER, Mrs. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. 

NORMAN, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. LATTA, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Ms. VAN

DUYNE, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. GIBBS, 

Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. CAWTHORN, and 

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To terminate Federal Pandemic Unemployment 

Compensation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEM4 PLOYMENT COMPENSATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2104(e)(2) of the CARES 

6 Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(e)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘Sep7 tember 6, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘May 31, 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3254 IH

1 (b) AMOUNT.—Section 2104(b)(3)(A)(ii) of such Act 

2 (15 U.S.C. 9023(b)(3)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘September 6, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘May 31, 2021’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
{"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":"Resources & Services","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6UhJJTa7o9\"><a href=\"\/resources-services\/\">Resources & Services<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/resources-services\/embed\/#?secret=6UhJJTa7o9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Resources & Services” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"6UhJJTa7o9\" 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"}
{"agency":"FMCS","generated":"2015-11-02 11:07:32","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"}],"value":"2015"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"6"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["12"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["14"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["2"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2015","quarter":"Q4"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Special Topics in Mediation - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7yDlQulN3I\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/eventsregister\/special-topics\/\">Special Topics in Mediation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/eventsregister\/special-topics\/embed\/#?secret=7yDlQulN3I\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Special Topics in Mediation” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"7yDlQulN3I\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\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\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"Based on feedback from our esteemed Mediation Skills alums, we have put together a series of webinars on topics related to aspects of mediation that beginning and intermediate mediators have found to be particularly challenging.\u00a0 You can sign up for one, several, or the whole series.\u00a0 While we will not have a formal screening process, […]"}
Amendment to Amended and Restated Revolving Secured Line of Credit Promissory



 Exhibit 4.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 RESOLVING SECURED LINE OF CREDIT PROMISSORY NOTE 
 This Amendment entered into as of September 26, 2007 by and between the undersigned Borrower (the “Borrower”) and ATLANTIC BANK, a division of New York
Commercial Bank (the “Bank”). 
 WHEREAS, the Bank extended a revolving line of credit to the Borrower as evidenced by an Amended
and Restated Revolving Secured Line of Credit Promissory Note dated March 6, 2006 in the principal balance of Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) and subsequently increased to Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000) by amendment dated March 22,
2007 (the “Note”), (all documents and agreements executed by the Borrower in connection with the Note are hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Documents”), 
 WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested, and the Bank has agreed, to make certain amendments to the Note. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Any term not defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Note. 

  

	2.	Section 1. is amended by extending the Maturity Date to August 1, 2008. 

  

	3.	The Borrower hereby represents and warrants to the Bank that: 

  

	 	(a)	Each and every one of the representations and warranties set forth in the Loan Documents is true as of the date hereof and with the same effect as though made on the date hereof,
and is hereby incorporated herein in full by reference as if fully restated herein in its entirety. 

  

	 	(b)	No Default or Event of Default and no event or condition which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute such a Default or Event of Default, now exists
or would exist. 

  

	4.	Except as set forth herein and amended and modified hereby, the Note and Loan Documents have not been amended or modified and remain in full force and effect.


  

	5.	Borrower waives any offset defense or counterclaim Borrower may now have or may have had in the future with regard to the Note and Loan Documents. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered on the date first written above. 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 







 Amendment to Amended and Restated Revolving Secured Line of Credit Promissory Note 
 As of September 26, 2007 
 Page -2- 
  

			
	 Borrower:

	MEDALLION FUNDING CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Brian S. O’Leary

	Print Name:	 	Brian S. O’Leary
	Title:	 	C.O.O.
		
	Accepted By:	 	ATLANTIC BANK,
		 	a division of New York Commercial Bank


			
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher Lynch

		 	Christopher Lynch
		 	Vice President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

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

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

November 25, 2015

d1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2015

148731

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148731

COA: 318726

Genesee CC: 12

- 031765

- FC

WILLIE DEJUAN COFFER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of October 28, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the January 8,

2014 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pend ing the decision in People

v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided

on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered, and it is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions p resented should be reviewed

by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Michael Khoury, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SourcingLing.net, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SourcingLing.net, Inc.





|Date: November 15, 2004 | /s/ Michael Khoury 
Michael Khoury
Director, President
Michael Khoury
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|-  13 -
|-------
|
{"id":1183,"date":"2014-04-02T10:13:11","date_gmt":"2014-04-02T14:13:11","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1183"},"modified":"2018-08-16T10:15:19","modified_gmt":"2018-08-16T14:15:19","slug":"commissioner-richard-lidinskys-comments-on-g6-alliance-agreement-fmc-agreement-no-012194-002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/commissioner-richard-lidinskys-comments-on-g6-alliance-agreement-fmc-agreement-no-012194-002\/","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Richard Lidinsky’s Comments on G6 Alliance Agreement, FMC Agreement No. 012194-002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>April 2, 2014<\/div>\n<p>Contact: Michael J. Gordon, Counsel for Commissioner Richard Lidinsky<\/p>\n<p>I support the G6 lines Alliance Agreement because this group of carriers and their structure is a true “alliance.”<\/p>\n<p>From the organizational chart, multi diverse membership, rotating Chairmen, VSA terms, and flexible operational procedures, it is well equipped to serve the international waterborne commerce of the United States in a fair and efficient manner<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>April 2, 2014 Contact: Michael J. Gordon, Counsel for Commissioner Richard Lidinsky I support the G6 lines Alliance Agreement because this group of carriers and their structure is a true “alliance.” From the organizational chart, multi diverse membership, rotating Chairmen, VSA terms, and flexible operational procedures, it is well equipped... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/commissioner-richard-lidinskys-comments-on-g6-alliance-agreement-fmc-agreement-no-012194-002\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7,29],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1183"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1183"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1183\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1184,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1183\/revisions\/1184"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**OF**

**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ballistic RecoverySystems, Inc. does hereby certify that:**

**a.**               the Annual Report on Form10-KSB of Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc. for the year ended September 30,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

**b.**               information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc.

** **
| Date: December 22, 2006 | /s/ Larry E. Williams       |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                    | By Larry E. Williams        |   |
|                    | Principal Executive Officer |   |

** **

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo MARTINEZ-BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6819.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 17, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 9, 2010.

Eduardo Martinez-Bautista, Appellant Pro Se. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Norval George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Martinez-Bautista appeals the district court’s order denying his motion seeking consent for a stipulated deportation order. We have reviewed the record and Martinez-Bautista’s claims, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Martinez-Bautista,*No. 3:05-cr-00503-RLW-1 (E.D.Va. May 13, 2010). 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.*