alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENY; and Opinion Filed August 11, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01034-CV

IN RE CHELSEA DAVIS, Relator

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-19281

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

The Court has before it relator’s petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial 

court’s July 28, 2014 “Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Non-suit.” The facts and the issues are 

known to the parties and we do not recite them herein. We conclude relator’s petition does not 

satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 because it does certify that 

relator has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is 

supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(j). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

141034F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
#### § 207.8 Physical presence in the United States.

For the purpose of adjustment of status under section 209(a)(1) of the Act, the required one year physical presence of the applicant in the United States is computed from the date the applicant entered the United States as a refugee.

[46 FR 45118, Sept. 10, 1981. Redesignated at 63 FR 3795, Jan. 27, 1998]
----

Action brought on 13 August 2004 by DATAC AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-341/04)

(2004/C 284/42)

Language in which the application was submitted: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2004 by DATAC AG, Passau (Germany), represented by K. Zingsheim, lawyer.

DATEV eG, Nuremberg (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----
Editorial Note on Part 674
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 674 appear at 65 FR 18002, 18003, Apr. 6, 2000.

§ 674.39 Loan rehabilitation. ( a ) Each institution must establish a loan rehabilitation program for all borrowers for the purpose of rehabilitating defaulted loans made under this part, except for loans for which a judgment has been secured or loans obtained by fraud for which the borrower has been convicted of, or has pled nolo contendere or guilty to, a crime involving fraud in obtaining title IV, HEA program assistance. The institution's loan rehabilitation program must provide that— ( 1 ) A defaulted borrower is notified of the option and consequences of rehabilitating a loan; and
( 2 ) A loan is rehabilitated if the borrower— ( i ) Requests rehabilitation; and
( ii ) Makes a full monthly payment—as determined by the institution—within 20 days of the due date, each month for 9 consecutive months.
( b ) Within 30 days of receiving the borrower's last on-time, consecutive, monthly payment, the institution must— ( 1 ) Return the borrower to regular repayment status;
( 2 ) Treat the first payment made under the nine consecutive payments as the first payment under the 10-year repayment maximum; and
( 3 ) Instruct any credit bureau to which the default was reported to remove the default from the borrower's credit history.
( c ) Collection costs on a rehabilitated loan— ( 1 ) If charged to the borrower, may not exceed 24 percent of the unpaid principal and accrued interest as of the date following application of the twelfth payment;
( 2 ) That exceed the amounts specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, may be charged to an institution's Fund until July 1, 2002 in accordance with § 674.47(e)(5); and
( 3 ) Are not restricted to 24 percent in the event the borrower defaults on the rehabilitated loan.
( d ) After rehabilitating a defaulted loan and returning to regular repayment status, the borrower regains the balance of the benefits and privileges of the promissory note as applied prior to the borrower's default on the loan. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits an institution from offering the borrower flexible repayment options following the borrower's return to regular repayment status on a rehabilitated loan.
( e ) The borrower may rehabilitate a defaulted loan only one time.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0023) [64 FR 58311, Oct. 28, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 65614, Nov. 1, 2000; 67 FR 67077, Nov. 1, 2002; 71 FR 45698, Aug. 9, 2006; 74 FR 55661, Oct. 28, 2009; 78 FR 65805, Nov. 1, 2013]
#### § 241.10 Special care and attention of removable aliens.

When, in accordance with section 241(c)(3) of the Act, a transportation line is responsible for the expenses of an inadmissible or deportable alien's removal, and the alien requires special care and attention, the alien shall be delivered to the owner, agent, master, commanding officer, person in charge, purser, or consignee of the vessel or aircraft on which the alien will be removed, who shall be given Forms I-287, I-287A, and I-287B. The reverse of Form I-287A shall be signed by the officer of the vessel or aircraft to whom the alien has been delivered and immediately returned to the immigration officer effecting delivery. Form I-287B shall be retained by the receiving officer and subsequently filled out by the agents or persons therein designated and returned by mail to the district director named on the form. The transportation line shall at its own expense forward the alien from the foreign port of disembarkation to the final destination specified on Form I-287. The special care and attention shall be continued to such final destination, except when the foreign public officers decline to allow such attendant to proceed and they take charge of the alien, in which case this fact shall be recorded by the transportation line on the reverse of Form I-287B. If the transportation line fails, refuses, or neglects to provide the necessary special care and attention or comply with the directions of Form I-287, the district director shall thereafter and without notice employ suitable persons, at the expense of the transportation line, and effect such removal.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 802

 799

 791

 790

 795

 802

 849

 846

 844

 794

 824

 840

 801

 791

 762

 763

 768

 761

 774

 798

 849

 804

 764

 769

 784

 841

 839

 834

 862

 852

 818

 779

 787

 775

 773

 775

 773

 801

 837

 784

 778

 781

 802

 776

 764

 751

 736

 750

 723

 752

 772

 795

 766

 749

 724

 746

 770

 758

 741

 778

 784

 791

 790

 792

 780

 779

 786

 789

 827

 842

 819

 784

 798

 827

 786

 776

 756

 756

 760

 757

 766

 784

 817

 785

 756

 753

 764

 808

 804

 790

 832

 823

 811

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 2, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 504

 505

 498

 497

 502

 504

 527

 536

 522

 501

 509

 527

 502

 496

 483

 483

 486

 484

 489

 501

 521

 501

 483

 481

 488

 515

 513

 504

 530

 525

 517

TOTAL 24,497

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 934

 882

 958

 945

 952

 889

 760

 785

 743

 729

 750

 709

 669

 646

 585

 704

 677

 650

 626

 628

 617

 613

 595

 571

 603

 640

 663

 578

 536

 596

 307

 313

 316

 331

 337

 334

 395

 393

 350

 334

 330

 340

 349

 351

 382

 376

 420

 420

 431

 461

 492

 507

 442

 397

 405

 411

 405

 384

 384

 385

 425

 427

 457

 581

 580

 550

 546

 571

 499

 467

 466

 465

 461

 406

 447

 547

 534

 529

 528

 544

 555

 567

 534

 472

 467

 483

 475

 446

 436

 447

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:May 1, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 279

 280

 298

 375

 374

 356

 353

 369

 324

 305

 304

 303

 301

 267

 292

 354

 346

 343

 342

 352

 359

 366

 346

 308

 305

 314

 310

 292

 285

 292

TOTAL 14,912

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 21a0385n.06

Case No. 20-6434

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JEREMIAH WALDROP, Individually; PHILLIP 

SELF, Individually,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: SUTTON, Chief Judge; COLE and READLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Street preachers Jeremiah Waldrop and Phillip Self sued the city of 

Johnson City, Tennessee, alleging that the city authorized its police officers to move them from 

the main grounds of an LGBTQ pride festival based on their anti-gay speech. 

The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, and after conducting discovery the 

parties cross-filed for summary judgment. The district court awarded summary judgment to 

Johnson City, but did so on grounds the city had not advanced, namely, that the officers’ conduct 

was a permissible, content-neutral restriction based on the plaintiffs’ blocking an entrance to the 

festival. The court summarily denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as well. 
Case No. 20-6434, Waldrop v. City of Johnson City

- 2 -

On appeal, both parties agree that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on 

grounds that neither party argued below. Because the district court did not consider the parties’ 

arguments and record evidence on an issue going to the heart of the plaintiffs’ claims, we reverse

the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Johnson City and its denial of the plaintiffs’ 

preliminary injunction motion and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.
No. 13284 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1977 

JOSEPH E. LAFOREST, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

RONALD LELAND AND COMPANY and 

E. K. WILLIAMS COMPANY, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial 

District 

Honorable Arnold H. Olsen, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Gregory J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Greenwood and Petaja, Helena, Montana 

Nicholas C. Jacques argued, Helena, Montana 

Submitted: January 11, 1977 

~ecided: JAN 2 0 1977 
Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an action for damages resulting from an alleged 

failure of defendants to procure worker's compensation coverage 

for the operation of plaintiff's service station in Butte, 

Silver Bow County, Montana. From an order of the district 

court, Silver Bow County, transferring venue to the district 

court, Lewis and Clark County, Montana, plaintiff appeals. 

The complaint alleges that in February, 1972, defendant 

Roland LeLand and Company entered into an oral contract with 

plaintiff to procure worker's compensation coverage for the 

operation of plaintiff's service station in Butte, Silver Bow 

County, Montana. The complaint alleges both breach of contract 

and negligence by defendant in failing to procure the coverage. 

Plaintiff was subsequently injured in an industrial accident. 

The complaint seeks damages in the amount of workmen's compensation benefits to which plaintiff would have been entitled had 

coverage been procured. 

The place of performance was not expressed in the oral 

contract. A dispute exists concerning whether the place of 

contracting was in Butte, Silver Bow County, or Helena, Lewis 

and Clark County. Plaintiff resides and operates his service 

station in Butte, Silver Bow County. The principal place of 

business of defendant Roland LeLand and Company is in Helena, 

Lewis and Clark County, and its president Roland LeLand resides 

there. 

We hold that the place of performance of the contract 

controls venue in this case. Section 93-2904, R.C.M. 1947. Absent the underlying contract, there is no negligence, no claim for 

relief, and no lawsuit. The gravamen of the complaint is failure to procure the coverage as agreed. By necessary implication, 

the coverage was to be procured by defendant at its place of 
business in Lewis and Clark County. The place of performance 

exception applies to contracts where the place of performance 

is indicated by necessary implication. McGregor v. Svare, 151 

Mont. 520, 445 P.2d 571 and cases cited therein. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Justice 

We concuj?: 

Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, deeming himself disqualified, 

did not participate in this case.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 321

 356

 349

 368

 353

 314

 324

 326

 325

 317

 327

 316

 320

 329

 338

 353

 402

 335

 344

 332

 339

 349

 351

 352

 351

 343

 341

 338

 352

 351

 346

 218

 248

 235

 209

 220

 281

 289

 317

 318

 291

 308

 286

 301

 316

 306

 338

 286

 278

 290

 265

 277

 340

 330

 348

 343

 335

 335

 312

 296

 298

 283

 274

 292

 277

 264

 281

 300

 305

 321

 322

 308

 318

 299

 310

 321

 319

 344

 349

 301

 319

 293

 319

 344

 342

 349

 346

 339

 339

 329

 320

 325

 307

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:September 12, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 185

 196

 187

 179

 190

 201

 204

 214

 215

 206

 213

 201

 208

 214

 213

 229

 232

 202

 213

 197

 213

 229

 227

 232

 230

 226

 226

 219

 214

 217

 206

TOTAL 9,776

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60755

Summary Calendar

SOLOMON AYOR,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 239 080

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Solomon Ayor petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s 

(BIA’s) denial of his second motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. The 

BIA determined that the evidence Ayor adduced in support of his otherwise 

untimely and number-barred motion failed to establish a material change in 

country conditions for Christians in Nigeria that affected his eligibility for any 

form of relief. We review the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion and its factual 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60755 Document: 00513410705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2016
No. 14-60755

2

findings for substantial evidence. Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 

(5th Cir. 2005).

Ayor argues that the BIA’s decision was arbitrary insofar as it failed to 

identify any deficiency from which his motion purportedly suffered under the 

applicable regulations. The BIA, however, specified that his motion had not 

been shown to qualify for 8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)’s exception to the time and 

numerical limitations because its supporting evidence did not reflect 

materially changed circumstances arising in Nigeria. Addressing the quality 

of the evidence, the BIA recognized that Ayor did not submit a State 

Department Country Report. Ayor now asks us to take judicial notice of the 

2012 and 2013 Country Reports. While we may take judicial notice of the “most 

current” Country Report, Shehu v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 435, 438 (5th Cir. 2006), 

the 2012 and 2013 Country Reports are not current, and we cannot consider 

evidence that Ayor failed to adduce and that the BIA did not consider. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 242 (5th Cir. 2009).

Ayor further faults the BIA’s characterization of his evidence as 

demonstrating a mere continuation of repressive practices versus evidence of 

a material change. In determining whether there has been a material change 

in country conditions, the BIA compares the evidence of country conditions 

submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits 

hearing below. In re S-Y-G, 24 I & N Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007). Our review of 

the record reveals that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination 

that Ayor’s evidence failed to demonstrate a material change in country 

conditions when compared to those that existed at the time of his removal 

hearing; therefore, it did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See

Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 632. 

PETITION DENIED.

 Case: 14-60755 Document: 00513410705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2016
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**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 American Racing Capital, Inc. (the
      “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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 results of operation of the Company.




Date:May
                ___, 2007
            By:*/s/
                A. Robert Koveleski*Name:A.
                Robert KoveleskiTitle:Principal
                Accounting Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to American Racing Capital, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by American Racing Capital, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division

In the Matter of: 

MARK ANTHONY ANDERSON

 

Chapter 13 

 Debtor Case No. 19-10888-KHK

ORDER DENYING CONFIRMATION 

Upon proper notice and a hearing on objection(s) to the Chapter 13 Plan; it is, therefore 

ORDERED that confirmation of the Debtor’s Plan filed February 6, 2020 is denied; and 

it is further 

ORDERED that unless the Court has entered an order previously confirming a Chapter 

13 Plan, the Debtor shall take one of the actions enumerated in Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-2 

within twenty-one (21) days from this Order and that the failure to do so may result in the 

dismissal of this Chapter 13 bankruptcy case; and it is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk mail a copy of this order to the Debtor, the attorney for the 

Debtor, the attorney for the objecting creditor(s), and the Chapter 13 Trustee. 

Date: _______________________________ 

 Klinette H. Kindred 

 United States Bankruptcy Judge 

I ask for this: 

__/s/ Thomas P. Gorman_____ 

Thomas P. Gorman, Trustee 

300 N. Washington St.; Ste. 400 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

(703) 836-2226 

VSB #26421 

SEEN and AGREED: 

/s/ Nathan A. Fisher 

Nathan A. Fisher 

Fisher-Sandler, LLC 

3977 Chain Bridge Rd., #2 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Counsel for Debtor 

Apr 1 2020 /s/ Klinette H. Kindred

Entered on Docket: April 1, 2020

Case 19-10888-KHK Doc 53 Filed 04/01/20 Entered 04/01/20 14:45:56 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Order Denying Confirmation, page 2 

Case #19-10888-KHK, Mark Anthony Anderson 

Local Rule 9022-1(C) Certification 

The foregoing Order was endorsed by and/or served upon all necessary parties pursuant 

to Local Rule 9022-1(C). 

/s/ Thomas P. Gorman 

Thomas P. Gorman, Chapter 13 Trustee 

PARTIES TO RECEIVE COPIES 

Mark Anthony Anderson 

Chapter 13 Debtor 

1411 Admiral Drive 

Woodbridge, VA 22192 

Nathan A. Fisher 

Attorney for Debtor 

Fisher-Sandler, LLC 

3977 Chain Bridge Rd., #2 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Thomas P. Gorman 

Chapter 13 Trustee 

300 N. Washington Street, Ste. 400 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Case 19-10888-KHK Doc 53 Filed 04/01/20 Entered 04/01/20 14:45:56 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division 

Mark Anthony Anderson 

 

Debtor 

Chapter 13 

Case No. 19-10888-KHK 

STATEMENT 

 COMES NOW, Thomas P. Gorman, who serves as the Chapter 13 Trustee in the 

above-referenced case, and states as follows: 

1. Mark Anthony Anderson and (the “Debtor”) filed the Chapter 13 Plan and 

Related Motions, which Plan was confirmed. 

2. Pursuant to the Plan, the Debtor proposed to make certain direct post-petition 

payments to creditors with secured claims, as well as remit certain payments 

to the Trustee. 

3. Based on the Trustee’s records, it appears that all payments due to the Trustee 

under the terms of the confirmed Plan have been received. 

4. This is not a Trustee Report of Completion of Plan Payments. The Trustee 

will file such subsequent pleadings as is ordered by the Court or are 

appropriate, pursuant to LBR 3002.1-1. 

 

Date: ___ April 16, 2024 _________ _/s/ Thomas P. Gorman_______ 

 Thomas P. Gorman 

 Chapter 13 Trustee 

 1414 Prince Street, Suite 202 

 Alexandria, VA 22314 

 (703) 836-2226 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing was mailed to Debtor at the address of record 

as shown on the Court’s Docket, and sent to Debtor’s Counsel via ECF this 16th day of 

April, 2024. 

/s/ Thomas P. Gorman_____ 

Thomas P. Gorman 

Case 19-10888-KHK Doc 99 Filed 04/16/24 Entered 04/16/24 15:43:49 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1