alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2674

___________________________

Gerardo Reyes Cordova

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Jeff B. Sessions, Attorney General of the United States

1

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: February 14, 2017

Filed: February 16, 2017

[Unpublished]

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Gerardo Reyes Cordova petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s order

denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Cordova moved to reopen the

Jeff B. Sessions is automatically substituted pursuant to Federal Rule of

1

Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
proceedings on the ground that his counsel was ineffective in advising him to

withdraw his application for cancellation of removal and accept voluntary departure.

After careful review, we conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in

rejecting Cordova’s claim of ineffective assistance and dismissing his appeal. See

Valencia v. Holder, 657 F.3d 745, 748 (8th Cir. 2011) (motions to reopen reviewed

for abuse of discretion). Had Cordova pursued his application for cancellation of

removal, he would have been required to show that he did not have any prior

convictions that made him ineligible for discretionary cancellation of removal. See

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (allowing discretionary cancellation of removal for alien

who, inter alia, has no convictions for certain specified offenses); Andrade-Zamora

v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 945, 948, 950 (8th Cir. 2016) (alien bears burden of showing

eligibility for discretionary cancellation of removal). At no time has Cordova

alleged--much less offered evidence--that he does not have such a disqualifying

conviction. Accordingly, he did not show prejudice resulting from his counsel’s

allegedly deficient performance. See Singh v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir.

2015) (to be eligible for BIA’s discretionary relief based on ineffective assistance of

counsel, alien must show his counsel’s performance was so ineffective it rendered

proceeding fundamentally unfair, and he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance);

see also Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (prejudice exists when there is reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

alleged error, outcome of proceedings would have been different).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________

-2-
EPA Meeting with EHSCP September 27 , 2012 EPA OUST: Liz McDermott, Erin Knighton, Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Tim Smith EHSCP: Julianne Barnum, Verizon Greg Micah, Verizon Randy Moore, Verizon Barbara Patton, AT&T Grif Bond, Century

L ink Bethan y French, Beveridge & Diamond EPA had a conference call with representatives of the Environmental, Health and Safety Communications Panel (EHSCP) to discuss the proposed changes to the UST regulation and answered questions on the proposal

. The conversation focused on the proposal to require secondary containment testing

.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMES RUSSELL JOHNSON,,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 5:20cv252/TKW/MAF

OFFICER YOUNG.,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 26). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be 

granted with respect to the official capacity claims in the amended complaint, but 

denied as to the individual capacity claims. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 21) is GRANTED in part, and 

the official capacity claims in the amended complaint are DISMISSED. The motion 

is otherwise DENIED.
Page 2 of 2

3. Defendant shall answer the amended complaint within 14 days from the 

date of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A).

4. This case is recommitted to the magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### Thomas Chirumbolo, Jr., Respondent, v Theresa Chirumbolo, Also Known as Theresa Winter, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Same memorandum as in *Chirumbolo v Chirumbolo,*Appeal No. 1 (75 AD2d 992). (Appeal from order of Wayne County Family Court—temporary custody.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Witmer and Moule, JJ.
Case 4:96-cr-00033-WS-CAS Document 181 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:96-cr-00033-WS-CAS Document 181 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:96-cr-00033-WS-CAS Document 181 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:96-cr-00033-WS-CAS Document 181 Filed 07/18/05 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:96-cr-00033-WS-CAS Document 181 Filed 07/18/05 Page 5 of 5
§ 3201.84 Inks. ( a ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) Inks are liquid or powdered materials that are available in several colors and that are used to create the visual image on a substrate when writing, printing, and copying.
( 2 ) Inks for which Federal preferred procurement applies are: ( i ) *Specialty inks.* Inks used by printers to add extra characteristics to their prints for special effects or functions. Specialty inks include, but are not limited to: CD printing, erasable, FDA compliant, invisible, magnetic, scratch and sniff, thermochromic, and tree marking inks.
( ii ) *Inks (sheetfed—color).* Pigmented inks (other than black inks) used on coated and uncoated paper, paperboard, some plastic, and foil to print in color on annual reports, brochures, labels, and similar materials.
( iii ) *Inks (sheetfed—black).* Black inks used on coated and uncoated paper, paperboard, some plastic, and foil to print in black on annual reports, brochures, labels, and similar materials.
( iv ) *Inks (printer toner—<25 pages per minute (ppm)).* Inks that are a powdered chemical, used in photocopying machines and laser printers, which is transferred onto paper to form the printed image. These inks are formulated to be used in printers with standard fusing mechanisms and print speeds of less than 25 ppm.
( v ) *Inks (printer toner—≥25 ppm).* Inks that are a powdered chemical, used in photocopying machines and laser printers, which is transferred onto paper to form the printed image. These inks are formulated to be used in printers with advanced fusing mechanisms and print speeds of 25 ppm or greater.
( vi ) *Inks (news).* Inks used primarily to print newspapers.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The minimum biobased content for all inks shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product. The applicable minimum biobased contents for the Federal preferred procurement products are: ( 1 ) *Specialty inks* —66 percent.
( 2 ) *Inks (sheetfed—color)* —67 percent.
( 3 ) *Inks (sheetfed—black)* —49 percent.
( 4 ) *Inks (printer toner—<25 ppm)* —34 percent.
( 5 ) *Inks (printer toner—≥25 ppm)* —20 percent.
( 6 ) *Inks (news)* —32 percent.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than April 4, 2013, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased inks. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased inks.
[77 FR 20289, Apr. 4, 2012]
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                 FORM 10-Q SB/A

                               AMENDMENT TO REPORT

                Filed pursuant to Section 12, 13, or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                                TELS Corporation
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                           Commission File No. 0-12993

The  undersigned   registrant  hereby  amends  the  following  item,   financial
statement,  exhibit or other portion of its report dated March 31, 1999, on Form
10-QSB as set forth in the page attached hereto:

PART I, Management's  Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
of Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources, Net Working Capital.


Pursuant  to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  the
registrant  has duly  caused  this  amendment  to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                                 TELS Corporation
                                                 ----------------
                                                 (Registrant)


Dated:  May 17, 1999                                 By:      /s/ John L. Gunter
-------------------------                            ---------------------------
                                                                  John L. Gunter
                                                                Chairman and CEO


Dated:  May 17, 1999                                 By:   /s/ Stephen M. Nelson
-------------------------                            ---------------------------
                                                               Stephen M. Nelson
                                                            President, Treasurer
                                                            and Acting Secretary


Dated:  May 17, 1999                                 By:    /s/ Ronald A. Haller
-------------------------                            ---------------------------
                                                                Ronald A. Haller
                                                                      Controller

<PAGE>




                                TELS Corporation
                                ----------------


Liquidity and Capital Resources

     As of March 31, 1999, the Company reported current assets of $1,551,706 and
current liabilities of $1,533,380,  resulting in net working capital of $18,326.
This is an increase of $150,133 when compared to a net working  capital  deficit
of $131,807 at December 31, 1998.  During the first quarter of 1999, the Company
generated $43,316 in cash from operating activities and used $38,910 and $22,183
of cash in its investing and financing activities, respectively.
Salary and Benefits Continuation:
 Salary Continuation: Three
Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($300,000.00)
 Benefit Coverage:
   FY2009 Bonus Payment: Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($200,000.00)




---



##### 



Vacation:
 Cell Phone:
 Receipt of Acceptance:
 Revocation:
 General Release And Related Provisions:




---



##### 



Civil Code Section 1542 Waiver:
 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or
suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of execution of the release, which
if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the
debtor.
  Non-Admission Of Liability:




---



##### 



Confirmation of Indemnification
 Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement:
    Section 409A
 Additional Terms:




---



##### 



Resignation From All Positions:
 Transition.
 Defense.
 Breach of Confidentiality, Non-Disparagement and Defense Sections
 Taxing Authorities.
 Successors And Assigns.
 Ambiguities.
 Integration.
 Reimbursements




---



##### 



a.
    
    Short term apartment rental  approximately $19,620.b.
    
    Shipping of household goods  from CT to CA  approximately $14,295.c.
    
    Miscellaneous transportation, etc.  approximately $1,000.
  d.
    
    Packing and shipping of household goods  estimate $20,000.e.
    
    Shipping of automobile  estimate $2,000.
 Entire Understanding .
 Captions.
 Knowing And Voluntary Agreement.




---



##### 



/s/ Jeffrey T. MezgerJeffrey T. MezgerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
KB HOME ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT
  /s/ Raymond P. SilcockDated: 12/18/09
    
    Raymond P. Silcock




---



##### 



/s/ Thomas F. NortonThomas F. NortonSenior Vice President, Human Resources
KB HOME
Exhibit 23

                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                    -----------------------------------------

        As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
    incorporation by reference of our reports dated February 17, 1998,
    included in or incorporated by reference into Thermo Instrument Systems
    Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 1998,
    into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements as follows:
    Registration Statement No. 33-14980 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
    No. 33-16461 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-14974 on Form
    S-8, Post Effective Amendment to Registration Statement on Form S-4 No.
    33-32579-02 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-33577 on Form S-8,
    Registration Statement No. 33-36221 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
    No. 33-37866 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-42270 on Form
    S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-69526 on Form S-3, Registration
    Statement No. 33-65275 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-37559
    on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-32031 on Form S-3,
    Registration Statement No. 333-02163 on Form S-3, and Registration
    Statement No. 333-17707 on Form S-3.



                                                 Arthur Andersen LLP



    Boston, Massachusetts
    March 10, 1998
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kamorie Edwards, Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 128]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), rendered November 18, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (LaPera, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court correctly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a loaded, operable handgun. “The factual findings and credibility determinations of a hearing court are accorded great deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” *(People v Parker,*306 AD2d 543, 543 [2003]). Here, the record supports the hearing court’s finding that the *819officer saw the gun in plain view upon shining his flashlight into the defendant’s car from outside *(see People v Parris,*26 AD3d 393, 394 [2006]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, limited to his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s grand jury testimony, which was admitted into evidence by stipulation at trial, established both his possession of a loaded weapon and his intention to use it unlawfully.

Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention, that the verdict was repugnant, is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

           CERTIFICATIONS OF THE REGISTRANT'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending August 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gerald G. Nadig, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.

                                                  October 15, 2002

                                           By:   /s/ Gerald G. Nadig
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                     Gerald G. Nadig
                                                     Chairman, President
                                                     and Chief Executive Officer


     In connection with the Report, I, James J. Waclawik, Sr., Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C.(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my 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.

                                                  October 15, 2002

                                           By:    /s/ James J. Waclawik, Sr.
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                    James J. Waclawik, Sr.
                                                    Vice President,
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    and Secretary
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Martyn A. Powell, President, Director and Principal Financial Officer of Missouri River and Gold Gem Corporation (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date:  July 15, 2003

/s/Martyn A. Powell

Martyn A. Powell

President, Director and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNTIED STATES CODE,


as
      adopted pursuant to


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the annual report of Theragenics Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M.
      Christine Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Okley 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 Company as of the
      dates
      and for the periods referred to in the Report.





Date:
      March 13, 2006







/s/
      M.
      Christine Jacobs


M.
      Christine Jacobs


Chief
      Executive Officer
[No. 9050.

Department One.

January 6, 1911.]

#### F. A. McDonald *et al., Appellants,*v. The City of Seattle *et al., Respondents.*
      *1*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Frater, J., entered May 2, 1910.

Affirmed.

*Garkeek é McDonald,*for appellants.

*Scott Oathoun, James E. Bradford, O. B. Thorgrimson,*and *Leander T. Turner,*for respondents.

Reported in 112 Pac. 641.

Per Curiam.

This case is governed by the decision in No. 8989, *Levy v. Seattle, ante*p. 540, 112 Pac. 639, and must be affirmed for the reasons there stated.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief executive officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Company.
 
 
 /s/ C.E. PorterC.E. PorterChief Executive OfficerAugust 13, 2010







29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Vaughn, 7:20cv134 

 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

EXHIBITS ORDER NO. 4 

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections to exhibits identified on 

Defendants’ first priority exhibit list dated March 18, 2022. The Court’s rulings are 

set forth and highlighted in the attached Exhibit A. Rulings for all remaining 

objections on parties’ priority exhibit lists will follow by separate order. 

SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2022. 

 

 M. CASEY RODGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00134-MCR-GRJ Document 132 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 1