alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROLANDO CHIQUETE-VERDUGO,

AKA Rolando Verdugo, DBA Rolando

Chiquete Verdugo,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72136

Agency No. A205-316-189

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 9, 2015** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Rolando Chiquete-Verdugo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance. We have

FILED

DEC 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations. SandovalLuna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for

review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chiquete-Verdugo’s

request for a further continuance for failure to demonstrate good cause. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2009)

(factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes

an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the

denial). Furthermore, the denial of Chiquete-Verdugo’s request for a continuance

did not violate his due process rights, where he has not provided sufficient

evidence of eligibility for relief that would demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS,

204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a

due process claim).

Chiquete-Verdugo’s claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing also

fails. See id. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

2 13-72136
David D. Wilbon et al,

Plaintiff(s),

Joseph M. Plovanich et al,

Defendant(s).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case No. l2cvll32

Judge M. David Weisman

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs David Wilbon, Rico Wilbon and George Smith and against

defendants Sarah McDermott, Mark Kushiner, Noel Esquivel, Jorge Cerda, and City of Chicago in the amounts

of $225,000 for David Wilbon, $40,000 for Rico Wilbon, and $25,000 for George Smith, which does not

include pre-judgment interest. Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from

the date of this judgment. Plaintif(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s). Judgment entered in favor of

defendants Joseph Plovanich and Officer Milan and against plaintiff David Wilbon. Judgment entered in favor

of defendant Antonio Valentin, and against plaintiffs David Wilbon, Rico Wilbon and George Smith.

This action was:

ffitried by a jury with Judge M. David Weisman presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict.

Date:7/25/18

M. David Weisman

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:12-cv-01132 Document #: 537 Filed: 07/25/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:8016
#### Associates Discount Corporation, Respondent, v Stuart E. J. Fulton, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 7, 1978, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is unanimously reversed, on the law, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant, and the motion is denied. Plaintiff, holder of a lien on a tractor trailer owned by Edward Rice, sues on an insurance contract. Rice was a leased operator for Navajo Freight Lines who could get insurance for its leased operators at a lower premium than the individual himself. Plaintiff was the named loss payee and lienholder under such a policy issued by underwriters at Lloyd’s, represented by defendant. Rice was insured from December 13, 1976, to March 1, 1977, and was issued a renewal certificate for the period March 1, 1977, to March 1, 1978. Mr. Rice’s tractor trailer was stolen on March 30, 1977. Defendant claims that the policy was canceled on March 21, 1977, by Mr. Rice. Special Term, in granting plaintiffs motion, decided that defendant had not laid bare his proof in evidentiary form: But, in searching the record we find a document dated March 21, 1977, unexplained by Mr. Rice, that establishes a prima facie defense of cancellation by the insured and therefore triable issues. If Mr. Rice, indeed, canceled coverage by the defendant, no notice to plaintiff as lienor was required. Only if Lloyd’s underwriters canceled would 10 days’ notice have been required. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
# Summary

# 2. Daily Apps

# 3. State

# 4. By ZIP
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Darwin Aldrich, Appellant.

Motion granted and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include March 1961 Term.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HELEN M. MORRIS, by and through ANNETTE H. MORRIS, Attorneyin-Fact,

Appellant,

v.

SNH SE TENANT, TRS, INC., SNH TRS, INC., SENIOR HOUSING 

PROPERTIES TRUST, FVE MANAGERS, INC., FIVE STAR LIVING, 

INC. f/k/a FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE, INC., SPTMRT PROPERTIES 

TRUST, and PATRICIA J. FOSTER (as to THE GARDENS OF PORT ST. 

LUCIE),

Appellees.

No. 4D20-1622

[May 6, 2021]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth 

Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Barbara W. Bronis, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 562018CA001022AXXXXHC.

Megan Gisclar Colter, Lisa M. Tanaka, and Donna K. Hanes of Wilkes 

& Associates, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Thomas A. Valdez and Kimberly J. Lopater of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood 

& Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for appellee, SNH SE Tenant, TRS, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Neil L. Stenbuck, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Prima Energy Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annualreport (the “Evaluation Date”); and
c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of theEvaluation Date;
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controlswhich could adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant’sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls;and
6. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisannual report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: March 12, 2004         By:  /s/    Neil L. Stenbuck    Neil L. Stenbuck,    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(May 7, 1962)

#### Broadway Distributing Corp. v. Sol Goldman et al.

Motion for a stay denied and the case is placed at the head of the Ready Day Calendar for trial on May 14, 1962. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NICK PEARSON, On Behalf of Himself and All 

Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota 

Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 11cv07972 

Honorable James B. Zagel 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert 

DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES 

Defendant Target Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), by and through 

undersigned counsel, hereby moves for a modest page-limit extension to respond appropriately 

to the arguments made by Plaintiff in his opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Class Action Complaint. In support of this motion, Defendant states as follows: 

1. Pursuant to Court Order, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Class Action Complaint on July 20, 2012, and Plaintiff filed his Response on August 

31, 2012. Both Defendant and Plaintiff requested, and were granted, modest page-limit 

extensions to those briefs. 

2. Defendant today files its Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendant has addressed the arguments in Plaintiff’s 

Response as succinctly as possible, but to address those arguments appropriately, Defendant 

requests a short, two-page extension to Local Rule 7.1’s fifteen-page limit. 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel has stated that Plaintiff has no objection to this request. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:297
 2 

4. Allowance of the additional two pages requested by Defendant herein will not 

adversely impact any deadlines or prejudice any party (as Plaintiff has confirmed by electing not 

to oppose this request), but will allow Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s arguments in a manner 

that Defendant believes will be more informative and helpful to the Court. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant Target Corporation respectfully 

requests a two-page extension to Local Rule 7.1’s fifteen-page limit in order to allow the filing 

of a seventeen-page Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Class 

Action Complaint. 

Dated: October 18, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Bradley J. Andreozzi 

Bradley J. Andreozzi (ARDC No. 6257334) 

bradley.andreozzi@dbr.com

Justin O. Kay (ARDC No. 6286557) 

justin.kay@dbr.com

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 

191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 

Chicago, IL 60606-1698 

Tel: (312) 569-1000 

Fax: (312) 569-3000 

Kara L. McCall (ARDC No. 6272681) 

kmccall@sidley.com

Shelby K. Feuerbach (ARDC No. 6296364) 

sfeuerbach@sidley.com

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

One South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Tel: (312) 853-7000 

Fax: (312) 853-7036 

Counsel for Defendant Target Corporation

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:298
AVAQMD Rule109 C-3

Final Staff Report 05/12/10

Comment Letter 1 
C-4 AVAQMD Rule 109 

Final Staff Report 05/12/10

District response to Lockheed e-mail comment. 

1. No comment required. 
AVAQMD Rule109 C-5

Final Staff Report 05/12/10

1

Comment Letter 2 
C-6 AVAQMD Rule 109 

Final Staff Report 05/12/10

District response to USEPA comment letter. 

1. Added new rule section (D)(5) pursant to USEPA comment. 
AVAQMD Rule109 C-7

Final Staff Report 05/12/10

Comment Letter 3 
C-8 AVAQMD Rule 109 

Final Staff Report 05/12/10

District response to ARB comment letter. 

1. No response required.
| 1.   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for      the quarterly period ended January 22, 2010      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d));      and |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition      and results of operations of the  Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      March 8, 2010     |   |   | /s/      Raymond F. Lancy                                                        |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |   |   | Raymond      F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer) |   |
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fred C. Schulte, Chief Executive Officer of Elgin National Industries, Inc., certify that:



| | 1. | This quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Elgin National Industries, Inc. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elgin National Industries, Inc.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    FRED C. SCHULTEFred C. SchulteChief Executive Officer


Date: November 14, 2006
### §8. Proceedings begun by libel in admiralty and seizure of vessel or property

If the basis of jurisdiction be a cause of action otherwise justiciable in admiralty, then, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the party claiming to be aggrieved may begin his proceeding hereunder by libel and seizure of the vessel or other property of the other party according to the usual course of admiralty proceedings, and the court shall then have jurisdiction to direct the parties to proceed with the arbitration and shall retain jurisdiction to enter its decree upon the award.

(July 30, 1947, ch. 392, 61 Stat. 672.)

#### Derivation

Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, §8, 43 Stat 884.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                               3,041
<SECURITIES>                                        66,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                       25,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,000
<INVENTORY>                                         32,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   128,010
<PP&E>                                             115,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                      84,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     162,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               16,186
<BONDS>                                                539
<COMMON>                                             1,316
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                         137,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       162,711
<SALES>                                             34,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    34,251
<CGS>                                               29,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       29,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      2,532
<INCOME-TAX>                                           797
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,735
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,735
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .30
        


</TABLE>
Final List of Private Meetings and Attendees

Proposed Rule for Gainful Employment

December 15, 2010

U.S. Department of Education

“Over the past several weeks, the U.S. Department of Education met with over 50 unique entities to discuss their comments received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking for gainful employment published on July 29, 2010.  Below you will find the complete list of individuals who participated on behalf of for-profit institutions, community colleges, higher education organizations, student organizations, and other interested parties.

As a whole, the discussions resulting from these meetings helped to ensure that the Department underwent a thorough and thoughtful review process that will ultimately result in a rule that best serves the interests of students and taxpayers alike.  The Department appreciates the constructive viewpoints shared throughout the course of these discussions and is on track to publish a final rule in early 2011.”

The following Department Officials and Staff participated in private meetings on the subject of gainful employment:

Office of the Secretary (ED-SEC)

· Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education

Office of the Deputy Secretary (ED-ODS)

· Tony Miller, Deputy Secretary 

Office of the Under Secretary (ED-OUS)

· James Kvaal, Deputy Under Secretary

· Leigh Arsenault, Confidential Assistant

Office of the General Counsel (ED-OGC)

· Charlie Rose, General Counsel

· Georgia Yuan, Deputy General Counsel

· Steve Finley, Program Attorney

· Harold Jenkins, Assistant General Counsel

Office of Postsecondary Education (ED-OPE)

· Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary

· David Bergeron, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 

· Dan Madzelan, Senior Director for Strategic Planning, Analysis, and Initiatives Service
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Earl Tracey, Respondent, v. Dominic Tantalo et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

The employer and carrier appeal from -a finding of 50% continuing causally related permanent partial disability and the computation of the claimant’s average weekly wage pursuant to section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Laiv. A report by Dr. James A. Elkins, who examined the claimant ¡on behalf of the appellants, advised that the claimant did not have a ruptured disc •— as described by claimant’s doctor • — but that he suffered an ¡aggravation of pre-existing arthritis, which resulted in a 50% permanent partial disability. The doctor was not called to testify and the report is not controverted by any evidence in the record. An impartial specialist also testified that claimant was suffering from arthritis. The record as a whole establishes that at the very least the claimant did aggravate a pre-existing arthritic condition, which is permanent and that he is at least 50% disabled as a result thereof. The board properly applied the provisions of section 14 in computing his average weekly wage as his employment was not seasonal but subject to weather conditions and the claimant did not limit his employment. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present ■ — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and T-aylor, JJ.
Motion Denied and Order filed July 28 , 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00176

- CR NO. 14

- 16

- 00177

- CR NO. 14

- 16

- 00178

- CR

____________ JASSSAN RASHAAD HUGHES , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1413584 , 1392119, and 1413583



### ORDER On December 18, 2015, a ppellant entered a plea of guilty in each of these three case without an agreed recommendation as to sentencing. Following a presentence investigation hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant on February 19, 2016. Appellant filed a motion to abate these appeals because each of the clerk’s

reco rds contains two certifications of appellant’s right to appeal : one signed December 18, 2015, that states he waived the right to appeal; and one signedFebruary 19, 2016, that states he has the right to appeal.

Although negotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid, non

- negotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid only if the defendant waived the right of appeal, knowing with certainty the punishment that would be assessed. See Washington v. State , 363 S.W.3d 589, 589

– 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ; Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The record in this case does not appear to reflect that appellant waived his right to appeal knowing with certainty the punishment that would be assessed. See Ex parte Delaney , 207 S.W.3d 794, 799 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Blanco v. State , 18 S.W.3d 218, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Therefore, the trial court’s February 19, 2016, certifications correctly indicate appellant has the right to appeal. Accordingly, the motion to abate is DENIED

. Appellant’s brief is due by August 18 , 2016

.