alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gurpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent.

No. 05-6840-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 21, 2007.

Hector M. Roman, Roman *&*Singh, Jackson Heights, New York, for Petitioner.

Rodger A. Heaton, United Statess, Attorney for the Central District of Illinois, Hilary W. Frooman, Assistant United States Attorney, Springfield, Illinois, for Respondents.

PRESENT: Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Gurpal Singh, a citizen of India, seeks review of a November 30, 2005 *33order of the BIA denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. *In re Gurpal Singh,*No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Kaur v. BIA,*413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); *Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam). An asylum applicant may file only one motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, an exception is available to applicants who demonstrate a change in conditions in the country to which removal has been ordered that establishes new eligibility for relief. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion. In his first motion to reopen, Singh provided the BIA with an affidavit briefly detailing his fear of persecution and newspaper articles regarding the treatment of Sikhs in India. The BIA found that these materials were insufficient to establish Singh’s eligibility for relief, and that they therefore did not warrant reopening his proceedings. In his second motion to reopen, Singh provided the same affidavit he had previously submitted to the BIA, and no other additional evidence. Accordingly, he failed to provide material, previously unavailable evidence of changed country conditions that excuse his numerically barred motion to reopen.

For the foregoing reasons the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral arguments in this case is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).
EXHIBIT 32





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





To our knowledge, the undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/ Thomas A. Vann

/s/ William L. WallThomas A. Vann
William L. WallPresident and
Executive Vice PresidentChief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
(Principal Financial Officer)Date: May 9, 2011
Date: May 9, 2011
Exhibit 4.13
 ADDENDUM AGREEMENT
 Addendum Agreement)
 TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
 BETWEEN CARDIFF MARINE INC.
OF MONROVIA, LIBERIA, LAWFULLY REPRESENTED (HEREINAFTER
CARDIFF)
 AND
 OCEANRESOURCES OWNERS LIMITED (M/V JUNEAU)
OCEANCLARITY OWNERS LIMITED (M/T PINK SANDS)
OCEANFIGHTER OWNERS INC. (M/T OLINDA)
HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY THE OWNERS
   th
 th
 th  th  th
    




---



##### 




  st
   
  
  
 
  th




---



##### 



Signed this 21st day of October 2008/s/
Michael GregosON BEHALF OF OCEANRESOURCES OWNERS LIMITEDBy: Michael GregosTitle:
Chief Operating Officer/s/
Michael Gregos
ON BEHALF OF OCEANCLARITY OWNERS LIMITEDBy: Michael GregosTitle:
Chief Operating Officer/s/
Michael Gregos
ON BEHALF OF OCEANFIGHTER OWNERS LIMITEDBy: Michael GregosTitle: Chief Operating Officer/s/
Charalampos AlivizatosON-BEHALF OF CARDIFFBy: Charalampos AlivizatosTitle:
Legal Representative
[No. 24353-2-III.

Division Three.

August 9, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Larry Scott Brown, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Douglas County, No. 05-1-00008-6, John Hotchkiss, J., entered June 27, 2005. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, A.C.J., concurred in by Kulik, J., and Kato, J. Pro Tern.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6949-9] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed agreement. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to enter into an agreement with Libby Corporation pursuant to 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, regarding the Metalex Superfund Site located in Lexington County, Lexington, South Carolina. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty (30) days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the                               ( print page 13739)                            proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA, Region 4 (WMD-CPSB), Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887.                     

Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the publication. 

Dated: February 15, 2001. 

Franklin E. Hill, 

Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. 

[FR Doc. 01-5564 Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT CHARLES ALBERT HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 98-6662 JAMES RIVER CORRECTIONAL CENTER, WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-722-R) Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: January 29, 1999 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Charles Albert Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Charles Albert Harris appeals the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 1998). A Richmond Circuit Court jury convicted Harris of four counts of grand larceny in June 1991, and Harris executed his first state habeas corpus petition on March 26, 1997. After the denial of his state petition, Harris filed his § 2254 petition with the district court on September 8, 1997. In denying the § 2254 petition as untimely, the district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998). In Brown , we held that prisoners such as Harris whose convictions became final prior to the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, had a full year, until April 23, 1997, to file § 2254 petitions. Id. at 375-76. In addition, the one-year limitationperiod is tolled during the pendency of a properly filed state postconviction proceeding. See28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1), (2) (West Supp. 1998). Here, then, since Harris properly filed his state habeas corpus petition twenty-eight days prior to April 23, 1997, he was accorded until September 10, 1997, to timely file his § 2254 petition with the district court--twenty-eight days from the August 13, 1997, denial of his state habeas petition. Because the § 2254 petition was filed on September 8, 1997, we conclude the petition was timely.Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court's order denying the petition as untimely, and remand the matter for further proceedings. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED
2
#### Roby M. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KRBE RADIO INC.; KRBE FM Radio Limited Partnership, doing business as Radio Station KRBE; Susquehanna Radio Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-20663.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 13, 2007.

Tom F. Coleman, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carole Elaine Howard, Jackson Walker, Houston, TX, Scott Masur McElhaney, *417Jackson Walker, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After studying the briefs, reviewing the record, and hearing oral argument, we are satisfied that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed. We conclude that the district court committed no error in granting summary judgment for the defendants on all of Roby Wilson’s claims. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

*

 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.
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE (Unaudited)



The following table reconciles the numerators and denominators for the basic and
diluted earnings per share calculations for the quarter ended March 31, 1998:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   
                                                      INCOME                        SHARES                PER SHARE
                                                    (NUMERATOR)                 (DENOMINATOR)              AMOUNT
                                                   -------------                -------------             ---------
<S>                                                <C>                          <C>                       <C>          
Net income                                         $ 3,525,502
Less: Preferred stock dividend requirement            (161,724)

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                       5,791,600
                                                   --------------------------------------- 

Income available to common shareholders            $ 3,363,778                   5,791,600

   Basic earnings per share                                                                               $    0.58
                                                                                                          =========

Dilutive effect of stock options                                                   182,652
                                                   ---------------------------------------

Income available to common shareholders
   plus assumed conversions                        $ 3,363,778                   5,974,252


   Diluted earnings per share                                                                             $    0.56 
                                                                                                          =========
 
</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Joseph Meuse, certify that:



1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Clopton House Corporation..;



2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ Joseph Meuse

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

Joseph Meuse

President and Chief Executive Officer

April 15, 2008
#### GROOVER *v.*COOK, administrator.

Where a legal advertiseinent consists of less than one hundred words, the publisher of the same is entitled to charge seventy-five cents for each insertion, thereof for the first four insertions, and thirty-five cents for each subsequent insertion.

Argued May 4,

Decided May 25, 1901.

Complaint. Before Judge Butt. Muscogee superior court.. December 3, 1900.

This was an action on an open account for publishing notice of' an application for letters of dismission as administrator, at rates alleged to be in accordance with the Civil Code, § 5461. A demurrer,, on the ground that the rates charged were in excess of those allowed by this section, was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted. The notice contained 48 words, and the charges were 75 cents each insertion for the first four insertions, and 35 cents each for nine" subsequent insertions. The defendant contended that, under the code section referred to, the charge for an advertisement containing less than one hundred words should not be the same as for one hundred words, but should be in proportion to the number of words, and in this instance, the advertisement containing only 48 words, the charge should be, for each of the first four insertions, 36 cents, or 48-100ths of 75 cents, and for each of the subsequent insertions-the same proportion of 35 cents.

*613
      *A. W. Cozart*and *J. H. Martin,*for plaintiff.

*McNeill & Levy,*for defendant.

Fish, J.

It will be seen from tbe statement of the case that the only question presented for our determination is the proper construction of section 5461 of the Civil Code, which prescribes “the rates” to be allowed publishers of newspapers for publishing legal advertisements. The question is not free from difficulty, but we have reached the conclusion that the construction given to the provisions of this section by Attorney-General Anderson, in an opinion furnished by him to Comptroller-General Wright, on July 10, 1885, is the correct one, and we have adopted that opinion as our own. When his opinion was rendered the provisions now contained in section 5461 of the Civil Code were embodied in section 3704 (a) of the Code of .1882. He said: “My interpretation of .section 3704 (a) of the Code is that an advertisement of less than one hundred words is to be paid for at the same rate, viz.: seventy-five cents for each of the first four insertions, and thirty-five cents for each subsequent insertion. Had the statute read that fractional parts should be charged for in the same proportion, the interpretation would be different, but it prescribes a rate for the insertion of •every one hundred words, and then provides that the same rate shall be allowed for the insertion of fractional parts of a hundred words. As the section is worded, its proper interpretation, I think, is that ‘for each one hundred words or fractional parts thereof the sum of ■seventy-five cents for each of the first four insertions,’ etc., may be charged.” The court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13074-13075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5019]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 00N-1521]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval; Food Labeling Regulations (21 CFR Parts 101, 102, 104, and 
105)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Food Labeling Regulations (21 CFR 
Parts 101, 102, 104, and 105)'' has been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

[[Page 13075]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Peggy Schlosburg, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 10, 2000 
(65 FR 60195), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0381. 
The approval expires on February 29, 2004. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: February 23, 2001.
William K. Hubbard,
Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation.
[FR Doc. 01-5019 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EC01-68-000]

Take notice that on February 20, 2001, Georgia Power Company and Southern Power Company jointly filed certain errata to their February 12, 2001, “Application for Approval of the Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities Under section 203 of the Federal Power Act,” in the above-referenced docket, in the form of corrected pages to the filing, as well as redlined pages showing the changes made.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before March 9, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-5340  Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M