alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

December 13, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

03-60609

Summary Calendar

FELIPE GUILLERMO PENA LAVERDE,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A79 470 556)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Felipe Guillermo Pena Laverde petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen

and for reconsideration of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision.

The IJ denied Laverde’s application for asylum and withholding of

removal. Laverde contends the IJ erred because there was

unequivocal evidence that he will be persecuted due to his

membership in a particular social group if he is returned to

Colombia.
2

Laverde’s petition for review was timely only as to, and

sought review only of, the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen and

for reconsideration. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 395 (1995).

Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to review only whether BIA’s

denial was an abuse of discretion. See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS,

997 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Laverde has not addressed the reasons advanced in the BIA’s

denial of his motion to reopen and for reconsideration. Review of

this issue is, therefore, waived. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324

F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

DENIED
#### Abe SIZEMORE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1283.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 18, 2002.

Abe Sizemore, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United *643States Attorney, Kasey Warner, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Abe Sizemore, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 154 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 154

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To congratulate the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of its 
first direct and democratic presidential election and the inauguration 
                           of its president.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 154

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Whereas March 23, 1996, was the first time in the history of the 
            Republic of China on Taiwan that a presidential election 
            was held through direct popular vote by the people of 
            Taiwan;
    Whereas the election was held under great difficulties caused by 
            extensive military threats from the People's Republic of 
            China; and
    Whereas the presidential inauguration will be held on May 20, 1996, 
            and should be honored: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That--
            (1) the Congress congratulates the people of Taiwan on 
        holding their first direct and democratic presidential 
        election;
            (2) the United States continues its commitment to move 
        nations toward freedom and democracy; and
            (3) the United States is committed to encouraging and 
        protecting its democratic friends on Taiwan, within the 
        framework of the Taiwan Relations Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. L. G. Young, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 68-18.

Second Judicial District.

December 13, 1968.

Lapping, Niederman, and Facktor, and Sam Adam, of Chicago, for appellant;

John L. Moore, State’s Attorney, of Oregon, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE SEIDEN-FELD.

Not to be published in full.
§ 11.401(a)-19 Nonforfeitability in case of certain withdrawals. ( a ) *Application of section.* Section 401(a)(19) and this section apply to a plan to which section 411(a) applies. (See section 411(e) and § 11.411(a)-2 for applicability of section 411.)
( b ) *Prohibited forfeitures* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* A plan to which this section applies is not a qualified plan (and a trust forming a part of such plan is not a qualified trust) if, under such plan, any part of a participant's accrued benefit derived from employer contributions is forfeitable solely because a benefit derived from the participant's contributions under the plan is voluntarily withdrawn by him after he has become a 50 percent vested participant.
( 2 ) *50 percent vested participant.* For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a participant is a 50 percent vested participant when he has a nonforfeitable right (within the meaning of section 411 and the regulations thereunder) to at least 50 percent of his accrued benefit derived from employer contributions.
( 3 ) *Certain forfeitures.* Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply in the case of a forfeiture permitted by section 411(a)(3)(D)(iii) and § 11.411(a)-4(b)(5)(i) (relating to forfeitures of certain benefits accrued before September 2, 1974).
[T.D. 7387, 40 FR 51421, Nov. 5, 1975]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,344
<SECURITIES>                                     7,629
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,055
<INVENTORY>                                     20,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,958
<PP&E>                                          18,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,860
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,295
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,518)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,637
<SALES>                                         32,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,189
<CGS>                                           27,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,370)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,803)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,567)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,567)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.16)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0232

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SEAN MCKELVEY CALAHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

No further extensions of time will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 21 2022

12/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0232
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 88

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8, 1993

Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate July 1, 1993, as ‘‘National NYSP Day’’.

Whereas the National Youth Sports Program (hereafter referred to as ‘‘NYSP’’) is a highly effective and comprehensive youth sports and educational instruction program in the United States for economically disadvantaged youth, ages 10 to 16 years old;

Whereas over 69,000 economically disadvantaged young people participated in NYSP last year at United States colleges and universities in 153 cities, 44 States, and the

District of Columbia;

Whereas NYSP provides over 70,000 medical and follow-up

examinations as well as health instruction by medical

professionals to enrolled youth;

Whereas NYSP provides hot United States Department of

Agriculture-approved meals and snacks daily to all participating youth;
2

SJ 88 RFH

Whereas the NYSP staff includes professional instructors

with undergraduate degrees who offer educational instruction in drug education, AIDS, higher education, nutrition and health, and math and science, and who offer

counseling on such topics as career opportunities, teen

pregnancy, anti-gang strategies, and suicide prevention in

an effort to promote personal responsibility;

Whereas NYSP is administered by an advisory committee

composed of community leaders and college and university personnel, and collaborates with local community action agencies and mayors’ offices;

Whereas the NYSP partnership between the public and private sectors ensures that Federal funds are used to provide direct services for youth, that institutions of higher

education contribute facilities and personnel and pay the

indirect costs of the program, and that public and private

businesses donate equipment and supplies; and

Whereas 1993 marks the 25th year that NYSP has provided

economically disadvantaged youth with the opportunity to

participate in healthy sports activities in order to encourage these youth to build good habits, to direct the competitive urge toward constructive ends, to stimulate the

imagination to reach new goals, and to satisfy the human

desire to belong: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That July 1, 1993, is designated as ‘‘National NYSP

4 Day’’. The President is authorized and requested to issue

5 a proclamation calling upon State and local jurisdictions,

6 appropriate Federal agencies, and the people of the United
3

SJ 88 RFH

1 States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and

2 activities.

Passed the Senate May 27 (legislative day, April

19), 1993.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

** **

** **

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November1, 2015, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior TrustAdvisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2015-C33 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

TABBAA MUMTAZ, Doctor; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-16317

D.C. No. 5:10-cv-02715-RMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner James Edwards Williams appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

FILED

JUN 26 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-16317

Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of

and consciously disregarded a serious risk of harm to his health. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (setting forth objective and subjective prongs

of deliberate indifference claim); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-1060 (neither a

difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in

diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see

also Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) (§ 1983

does not provide a cause of action for alleged violations of state law).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Dream

Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining the

reasons for not considering new arguments on appeal, i.e., that doing so would

deprive the court of appeals “of a fully developed factual record” and “the benefit

of the district court’s prior analysis”).

Williams’s pending motions are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      21,022,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              246,821,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                12,653,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           277,908,000
<PP&E>                                      48,839,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,595,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             374,535,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      175,899,000
<BONDS>                                    133,384,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       19,940,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       224,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,968,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               374,535,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,023,410,000<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              354,658,000<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,255,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,829,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,285,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   840,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,720,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,720,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
<FN>
<F1>Excludes current portion of bonds, mortgages, and similar debt.
<F2>Represents gross revenue which includes costs of certain services 
subcontracted to third parties and other reimbursable direct project costs, 
such as materials procured by the Company on behalf of its customers.
<F3>Excludes subcontract and direct material costs of $592,295,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
WWW.EXFILE.COM -- 14982 -- MATRITECH, INC. -- EXHIBIT 4.1 TO FORM 8-K


    EXHIBIT
      4.1

    


    


    CONSENT
      TO AMENDMENT TO SERIES B 

    15%
      SECURED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTES DATED JANUARY 22, 2007

    


    The
      undersigned Investor hereby consents to amend the Securities Purchase Agreement,
      dated as of January 22, 2007, by and among the Borrower and the purchasers
      party
      thereto (the “Series
      B Purchase Agreement”)
      as
      follows: 

    


    1.    To
      delete
      the last sentence of Section 4(g) of the Series B Purchase Agreement in its
      entirety and substitute in place thereof the following:

    


    “In
      addition, the Company shall, at a special or annual meeting of stockholders,
      to
      be held no later than June 11, 2007, offer proposals (the “Stockholder
      Proposals”)
      for
      stockholder approval (as required by the applicable rules and regulations of
      AMEX) with respect to the transactions contemplated by the Transaction
      Documents, including proposals approving (i) the issuance of shares upon
      conversion of the Series B Notes, as payment of interest on the Series B Notes,
      or upon the amortization of the Series B Notes, at a price below $0.63 (the
      “Conversion
      Floor Price”);
      (ii)
      the issuance of shares upon exercise of the Series B Warrants pursuant to the
      full ratchet antidilution provisions in the Series B Warrants at a price below
      $0.63 (the “Warrant
      Floor Price”);
      and
      (iii) if the Company determines it is necessary in order to be able to satisfy
      its obligations relative to the issuance of Conversion Shares and Warrant Shares
      under the Series B Notes and Series B Warrants, an amendment to the Company’s
      Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of
      Common Stock, with the recommendation of the Company’s Board of Directors that
      such proposals be approved, and the Company shall use its best efforts to
      solicit proxies from its stockholders in connection therewith in favor of such
      proposals and all management-appointed proxyholders shall vote their proxies
      in
      favor of such proposals.”

    


    The
      undersigned Investor agrees that, upon (i) receipt by Matritech, Inc. of signed
      Consents to Amendment from Investors holding at least a majority in outstanding
      principal amount of the Series B Notes and (ii) Matritech’s execution of a
      formal Consent to Amendment, the Series B Purchase Agreement shall be amended
      as
      provided herein.

    


    


    
      	 	
              Investor
                - ____________________

              


              


              


              By:__________________________

              Name:________________________

              Title:_________________________