alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50954 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ARNULFO HERNANDEZ-MOLINA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-1012-2
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Arnulfo Hernandez-Molina has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with A nders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Following the filing of counsel’s A nders motion, Hernandez-Molina filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of HernandezMolina’s claim ofineffective assistance ofcounsel; such claims generally “cannot United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D July 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50954

2 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 al legations.” U nited States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2. Hernandez-Molina’s motion for appointment ofcounsel is DENIED. See United Statesv. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
EXHIBIT 32.02

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 of Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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:



| | 1. | the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                   |  |                       
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                     |  |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | By:                                               |  | /s/ Ronald J. Domanico
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                   |  | Ronald J. Domanico    
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report of Secured Income L.P. (the “Registrant”) on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Paul Richman,
      Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman Resources Corporation, a general
      partner of the Registrant, 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
                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 Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Registrant.






/s/
      Richard Paul Richman





Richard
      Paul Richman


Chief
      Executive Officer of Wilder Richman


Resources
      Corporation, a general partner of


the
      Registrant


April
      17,
      2007
#### Gurpreet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70087.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 13, 2010.

*240Martin A. Robles, Esq., 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, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gurpreet Singh, native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. *Afriyie v. Holder,*613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir.2009).

Singh testified that at the age of 12 he witnessed police officers tie his mother to a tree and beat her. He also testified that after the police arrested his mother and father, he never heard from them again. Thus, the record does not support the BIA’s finding that Singh presented “no evidence” he was harmed by the Indian government. *See Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales,*496 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2007) (“injuries to a family must be considered in an asylum case where the events that form the basis of the past persecution claim were perceived when the petitioner was a child”).

The BIA cited the declaration Singh submitted with his asylum application that his parents were arrested because of his *241uncle’s membership in the Akali Dal. The BIA later stated the record contains “no evidence” the disappearance of Singh’s parents was other than random violence. Because these findings are inconsistent, and because the BIA did not consider other evidence of a nexus in the affidavits Singh submitted, we grant the petition with respect to Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

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

**

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000826491
<NAME> FIRST GEORGIA BANK
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            8764
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             248
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  7351
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           16103
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             15375
<LOANS>                                         197742
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  239064
<DEPOSITS>                                      213839
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3765
<LONG-TERM>                                       2500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          7198
<OTHER-SE>                                       11759
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  239064
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  13552
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  741
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   261
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 14555
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                6493
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6863
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             7692
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      265
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   6190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1282
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1282
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1921
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.94
<LOANS-NON>                                       2221
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1235
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      291
<RECOVERIES>                                        47
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1256
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3180]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 35 and 735

[FRL-694, 2-7]
RIN: 2030-AA55


Environmental Program Grants--State, Interstate, and Local 
Government Agencies: Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from 
the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled 
``Regulatory Review Plan,'' published in the Federal Register on 
January 24, 2001, this action temporarily delays for 60 days the 
effective date of the rule entitled Environmental Program Grants-State, 
Interstate, and Local Government Agencies, published in the Federal 
Register on January 9, 2001, 66 FR 1725. This regulation updates, 
clarifies, and streamlines requirements governing environmental program 
grants and establishes requirements for the Performance Partnership 
Grant (PPG) program.

DATES: The effective date of the Environmental Program Grants State, 
Interstate, and Local Government Agencies, amending 40 CFR parts 35 and 
735, published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2001, at 66 FR 
1725, is delayed for 60 days, from February 8, 2001, to a new effective 
date of April 9, 2001. This regulation applies to new grants awarded 
after April 9, 2001, and it may be applied to currently active PPGs, if 
agreed to in writing by the Regional Administrator and the recipient.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W. Scott McMoran, Grants 
Administration Division (3903R), United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: 
(202) 564-5376, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a07290725382b24641929253e3e0a2f3a2b642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84c9e7c9ebf6e5eaaad7e7ebf0f0c4e1f4e5aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The temporary 60-day delay in effective date 
is necessary to give Agency officials the opportunity for further 
review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the 
Assistant to the President's memorandum of January 20, 2001. This 
action involves matters relating to grants and under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) 
is thus exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.

    Dated: January 29, 2001.
David J. O'Connor,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources 
Management.
[FR Doc. 01-3180 Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 08

- 00264

- CR

ERIK PHILIP P

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the County Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. 60211

MEMORANDUM OPINIO N

Erik Philipp was convicted of driving while into xicated. He filed a notice of

appeal. He has now filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal requesting this Court to

withdraw the notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal. Philipp personally signed the

Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. T E X

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief JusticePhilipp v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 19 , 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

October 18, 2016

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 17, 2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from  F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Michael K. McNary v. AlcoaWorld Alumina, Inc.,* 2015-279-DM**(Issues include whether the Judgeerred in issuing a summary decision concluding that the operator did notinterfere with the complainant’s statutory rights as a miners’ representative.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,123-02

IN RE RAY NORRIS RANDALL, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 959285-A IN THE 184TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant

to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus in the 184th District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and

that the application has not yet been forwarded to this Court. This Court’s records indicate that the

district court entered an order designating issues on January 8, 2015.

Respondent, the Judge of the 184th District Court of Harris County, shall file a response with

this Court by having the District Clerk submit the record on such habeas corpus application. In the

alternative, Respondent may resolve the issues set out in the order designating issues and then have
2

the District Clerk submit the record on such application. In either case, Respondent’s answer shall

be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order. This application for leave to file a writ of

mandamus will be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate response.

Filed: August 26, 2015

Do not publish
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 23.2

  Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers Accounting N.V., The Hague, The Netherlands

<PAGE>


Exhibit 23.2



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-79775), Form S-8 (File No. 333-86320) and
Form S-8 (File No. 333-95997) of Lithium Technology Corporation of our report
dated April 11, 2003, relating to the financial statements, which appears in
this Form 10-KSB.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V.

The Hague, the Netherlands
April 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<RESTATED>
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         194
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                   240
<INVENTORY>                                    71
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,646
<PP&E>                                         2,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,844
<BONDS>                                        600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       147
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,049
<SALES>                                        3,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,954
<CGS>                                          706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               30
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             36
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                146
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            146
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.01
        


</TABLE>
-  Home 
-  Regulations 
-  Medical 

# In This Section

                      -  Medical 
                      -  Medical Requirements for Drivers                          -  Overview 
                        -  Medical Exam 
                        -  Exemptions 
                        -  SPE Certificate Program 
                        -  Applications & Forms 
                      -  Medical Examiners                          -  Medical Examiner’s Handbook 2024 Edition 
                        -  Responsibilities 
                        -  Medical Expert Panels 
                      -  Medical Review Board 
                      -  Reports 
                      -  Medical Resource Table 
                      -  National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners                          -  Overview 
                        -  National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners 
                        -  National Registry Technical Support Request Form 

## Contact Us

Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationMedical Program
1200 New Jersey Avenue SEWashington, DC, DC20590United States

**Email:**FMCSAMedical@dot.gov**Phone:**(202) 366-4001****Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Medical Examiner Responsibilities

Responsibilities of Medical Examiners are outlined in CFR Title 49, Chapter II Subpart E §391.43 Medical examination; certificate of physical examination.
2014- 0063.

#### Foy v. Sheldon.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Raymond Foy. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7109

ABDUR R. SHABAZZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairwoman, Virginia Pardon and Parole Board; GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-04-344-2) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdur R. Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Abdur R. Shabazz appeals the district court’s order that dismissed his action, which the court construed as filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Shabazz v. Fahey , No. CA-04-344-2 (E.D. Va. June 21, 2004). 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
EX-10.13 Amendment No. 1 to "Shipman 98" Agreement



 





EXHIBIT
10.13




AMENDMENT NO. 1 OF JULY 22, 2005 TO THE “SHIPMAN 98” AGREEMENT

DATED JULY 1, 2004 BETWEEN ADVENTURE THREE S.A. & FREE BULKERS S.A.




IT IS TODAY MUTUALLY AGREED THAT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS ARE IN FORCE



BOX 10 — YES, 1% OF GROSS AMOUNT



BOX 13 — YES, 1.25% OF GROSS FREIGHT, DEMURRAGE HIRE PAYABLE ON FIXTURES AFTER REDELIVERY FROM CP
DD JUNE 30, 2004





	 	 	 	 	 
	THE OWNERS 

 	 
	/s/ George D. Gourdomichalis
 	 
	George D. Gourdomichalis 	 
	 	 
	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	THE MANAGERS

 	 
	/s/ Ion G. Varouxakis
 	 
	Ion G. Varouxakis