alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 13239 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A087

- 997

- 015
NIKHILKUMAR HASMUKHBHAI PATEL, Petitioner,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition fo r Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ (March 28, 2014) Before TJOFLAT , PRYOR and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Nikhilkumar Hasmukhbhai Patel , a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of removal an d the decision affirming the denial of his

Case: 13-13239 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 1 of 32 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the findings of the immigration judge that Patel ’s accounts of past persecution were not credible and that he had failed to establish that he was likely to be torture d if he returned to India. We deny Patel’s peti tion. Patel abandoned any cha llenge he might have made to the denial of his application for asylum. The immigration judge found Patel not credible based on his different accounts of persecution in his statements to border patrol agents and asylum officers , in his application, and in his testimony. Patel contested the adverse credibility ruling in his appeal to the Board , where he argued that he was “confused by many of the questions he was asked” about t h e inconsisten cies , but i n his petition, Patel focus es exclusively on the merits of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal . Patel abandoned his challenge to the adverse credibility ruling

. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226 , 1228 n.2 ( 11 th Cir.
2005 ) (“ When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned. ”). Substantial evidence supports the finding that Patel is unlikely to be tortured if he returns to India. The record is bereft of evidence that Patel would likely be tortured. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.1 6(c). Patel argues that he is entitled to

Case: 13-13239 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 2 of 33 relief based on information in his declaration , but we cannot consider a document that Patel prepared after the Board dismissed hi s appeal . We are required to

“ decide the petition only on the administrative recor d on which the order of removal is based .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
We DENY Patel’s petition for review. Case: 13-13239 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           12148
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              88
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 13300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      16613
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         166709
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (2491)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  217273
<DEPOSITS>                                      188894
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              14019
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1961
<OTHER-SE>                                       12340
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  217273
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  13448
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  792
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   516
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 14756
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                4164
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4983
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             9773
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      410
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  25
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   5889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4170
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        4170
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2822
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   11.85
<LOANS-NON>                                       1291
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2083
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        8
<RECOVERIES>                                         6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2491
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2491
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.71


 


Loan Agreement


 


The Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered
into as of January 15th, 2018 between the following two parties:


 


(1) Action Holdings Financial Limited (the
“Lender”)


 


(2) ZLI Holdings Limited (the “Borrower”)


 


The Lender and the Borrower will each be
referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.”


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower wishes to borrow a
loan from the Lender for its operations and the Lender agrees to provide such loan to the Borrower for such specified purpose.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	The
Lender agrees to provide the loan at amount USD 595,000 (the “Loan”) to the Borrower and agrees to proceed such Loan
to the Borrower within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement.


 


		2.	Term
for the Loan shall be from January 15th, 2018 to January 14th, 2021(the “Term”) which may be
extended successive 1 year in the event the Lender does not ask the Borrower to repay the principal amount of the Loan at the
end of Term.


 


		3.	The
principal amount of the Loan shall be paid in one lump sum or in installments before the Term.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed
this Agreement, or have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf, as of the date first hereinabove set forth.


 


Lender: Action Holdings Financial Limited (seal)


Borrower: ZLI Holdings Limited (seal)


Date: January 15th, 2018
# Subpart 941.2 - Acquiring Utility Services

**Parent topic:**PART 941 - ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES

## 941.201-70 DOE Directives.

Utility services (defined at 48 CFR 41.101) shall be acquired in accordance with 48 CFR part 41 and the Department of Energy (DOE) Order 430.2B, Departmental Energy, Renewable Energy and Transportation Management, or its successor. 

## 941.201-71 Use of subcontracts.

Utility services for the furnishing of electricity, gas (natural or manufactured), steam, water and/or sewerage at facilities owned or leased by DOE shall not be acquired under a subcontract arrangement, except as provided for at 970.4102-1 or if the prime contract is with a utility company.
§ 789.16 Changes or cancellations of priority ratings and rated orders. ( a ) The priority rating on a rated order may be changed or canceled by: ( 1 ) An official action of USDA; or
( 2 ) Written notification from the person who placed the rated order.
( b ) If an unrated order is amended so as to make it a rated order, or a DO rating is changed to a DX rating, the supplier must give the appropriate preferential treatment to the order as of the date the change is received by the supplier.
( c ) An amendment to a rated order that significantly alters a supplier's original production or delivery schedule constitutes a new rated order as of the date of its receipt. The supplier must accept or reject the amended order according to the provisions of § 789.13.
( d ) The following amendments do not constitute a new rated order: ( 1 ) A change in shipping destination;
( 2 ) A reduction in the total amount of the order;
( 3 ) An increase in the total amount of the order that has a negligible impact upon deliveries;
( 4 ) A minor variation in size or design; or
( 5 ) A change that is agreed upon between the supplier and the customer.
( e ) If a person no longer needs items or services to fill a rated order, any rated orders placed with suppliers for the items or services, or the priority rating on those orders, must be canceled.
( f ) When a priority rating is added to an unrated order, or is changed or canceled, all suppliers must be promptly notified in writing.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv711-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the joint motion for extension of

time (Doc. No. 75) is granted.

DONE, this the 23rd day of August, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 76 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 1
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No . 1 8 -3 1 41

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Un i t ed St at es o f Am eri ca

l ll l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l Pl a i n t i

f f - Ap pel l ee

v

.

Cars o n Arci a

l ll l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l Def

en da n t - Ap pel l an t

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ap p eal fro m

Un i t ed St at es Di s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e Eas t ern Di s t ri ct o f Ark an s as - Li t t l e Ro ck

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Su b m i t t ed : M ay

2 1 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : M ay

2 4 , 2 01 9 [Un pu b l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _
Befo re ERICKSON, W OLLM A N, an d GRASZ, Ci rcu i t J u d g es

.

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

PER CURIAM

.

Cars o n A rci a d i rect l y ap p eal s aft e r h e p l ed g u i l t y t o pro d u ct i o n o f ch i ld

p o rn og rap hy
, u n d er a p l ea ag reem en t co n t ai n in g an a p p e a l w a i v er, an d t h e d i s t ri ctco u rt 1 s en t en ced h i m to a p ri s o n t erm b el o w t h e cal cu l at ed Gu i d el in es ran g e. H i s

co u ns el h as m o v ed t o wi th d raw an d h as fi l ed a bri ef u n d er An d er s v. Ca l i fo r n i a , 3 8 6
U.S. 7 3 8 (1 9 67 ), ch al l en g in g t h e reas o n ab l en es s o f Arci a’ s sen t en ce. Th e
g o v ern m en t h as fi l ed a m o t i on t o d i s m i ss t h e ap p eal b as ed o n t h e ap p eal wai v er.

Up o n carefu l d e n o v o rev i ew, we co n cl u d e t h at t h e a p p e a l wai ver i s v al i d,

en fo rceab l e, an d ap p li cab l e t o t h i s ap p eal

. S ee Un i t ed S t a t es v. S

co t t , 6 2 7 F.3 d 7 0 2,
7 0 4 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 0) (d e n o v o rev i ew o f v al i d i t y an d ap p li cab i l i ty o f ap p eal wai v er);
Un i ted S t a t es v. An d i s , 3 3 3 F.3 d 8 8 6, 8 8 9-9 2 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 03 ) (en b an c) (ap p eal wai v er wi l l b e en fo rced if ap p eal fal l s wi t h i n s co p e o f w a i v e r, defen d an t k n o w i n g l y an d

v o l u n t ari l y en t ered i n t o p l ea ag reem en t an d wai v er, an d en fo rci n g wai v er wo u l d n ot

res u l t i n m i s carri ag e o f ju s ti ce). W e h av e al s o in d ep en d en t ly rev i ewed t h e r e c o rd

u n d er Pen s o n v. Oh i o , 4 8 8 U.S. 7 5 (1 98 8 ), an d t here are n o n o n-fri v o lo u s i s s u es fo r
ap p eal o u t s id e t h e s co p e o f t h e ap p eal wai v er. Acco rd i n g l y , we g ran t t h e
g o v ern m en t ’ s m o t i o n, d i s m i s s t h i s ap p e a l b a s ed o n t h e ap peal wai v er, an d g ran t

co u ns el l eav e t o wi t h d raw.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1 Th e Ho no rab l e D.P. M ars h al l J r., Un i t ed St at es Di st ri ct J u d g e fo r th e Eas t ern Di s t ri ct o f Ark an sas

.
-2

-
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 9 of 9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,342)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,050
<PP&E>                                          13,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,936
<BONDS>                                         45,586
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         27
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,990
<SALES>                                         24,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,434
<CGS>                                           18,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   376
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,398
<INCOME-TAX>                                       531
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                867
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Subpart 1528.3 - Insurance    **Parent topic:** PART 1528 - BONDS OF INSURANCE1528.301 Insurance liability to third persons.       Contracting officers shall insert the clause at 1552.228-70, Insurance Liability to Third Persons, in cost-reimbursement solicitations and contracts, except those for construction and architect-engineer services.                                  **Note:**                                  This clause may be used in contracts awarded utilizing architect-engineer services such as requirements for Superfund cleanups (e.g., response action contracts). The clause does not apply to Superfund indemnification for third party pollution liability or coverage for commercial pollution liability insurance as prescribed by section 119 of CERCLA as amended by SARA.
#### EBSART FIREPROOFING & GYPSUM BLOCK CO., Appellant, v. B. F. STURTEVANT CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by the Ebsart Fireproofing & Gypsum Block Company against the B. F. Sturtevant Company.

Edo E. Mercelis, of New York City, for appellant.

Louis L. Kahn, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
J(i lin I 

Mailing: 

The News Journal 

PO Box 15505 

Wilmington, DE 19850 

Sunday News Journal 

Streel The News Journal
 

The News Journal
 

950 W. Basin Road
 

New Castle, DE 19720
 

(302) 324-2500 

The News Journal 

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 

STATE OF DELAWARE COUNTY OF NEW CASTLE 

was published in THE NEWS JOURNAL on N/A 

and/or THE SUNDAY NEWS JOURNAL on November 22, 2009 

31 Legal Coordinator
 ~j7/1M =0 Title
 

Sworn to before me this n rd day of November, 2009 

·lA~ lk~~ -N"'o~ta-rY""'-""P""'U=bl=ic'='="'--1J

" 

Wanda James;'.\ii! 

Notary Public '1 

State of Delaware -­

Commission expires 11/02/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH LYNNE HUTCHINSON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv700-WHA

 )

PHENIX CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion to Amend Uniform Scheduling Order

(Doc. #23), the motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

The Uniform Scheduling Order entered in this case on September 14, 2006 (Doc. #11) is

AMENDED to extend the deadline for discovery from April 1, 2007 to May 1, 2007, and the

deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from April 24, 2007 to May 24, 2007.

 The parties are advised that this extension of time for filing dispositive motions will very

likely result in any such motion not being decided in advance of the pretrial hearing.

DONE this 7th day of March, 2007.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 24 Filed 03/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Donald J. Wilson et al., Respondents, v City of Johnstown, Appellant.

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 15, 1980 in Fulton County, which denied defendant’s motion for an order dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to comply with the provisions of section 50-h of the General Municipal Law. On June 15,1979 plaintiffs served a claim upon the defendant city alleging that the defendant, in its landfill *933operation, negligently permitted chemical waste to enter plaintiffs’ water supply. On July 13, 1979 defendant served upon the plaintiffs a notice of a hearing under the provisions of section 50-h. At the hearing, plaintiff Donald J. Wilson refused to answer questions concerning a report prepared by an expert employed by his attorney as to tests performed on plaintiffs’ water supply. Defendant contends that a municipality should be afforded full disclosure of the facts supporting a claim against it in advance of the commencement of the action in order that it may “ascertain both liability and extent of exposure.” We do not agree. In our view, the restrictions imposed by article 31 of the CPLR are applicable to a hearing under section 50-h of the General Municipal Law. CPLR 3101 (subd [d], par 1) provides that an opinion of an expert prepared for litigation shall not be obtainable except under conditions not here present (see *Binke v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,*55 AD2d 632). Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,929,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  151,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,806
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      41,350,726
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,537,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,378,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          959,006
<BONDS>                                     19,976,445
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,556,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,378,840
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,912,544
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,332,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,177,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             93,348,459
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         93,348,459
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                93,348,459
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   777.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   777.53
        

</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Daniel Ray Garcia

, * From the 106 th District Court

of Gaines County,

Trial Court No. 19

- 5086

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 145

- CR * July 25 , 20 2 4

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey

, C. J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 24 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 24 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Periodic
Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Patriot Coal Corporation.
  /s/ Richard M. WhitingRichard M. WhitingChief Executive Officer