alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1641
ZIA UL HASSAN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent.
No. 03-1642
LUBNA ZIA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent.
No. 03-1643
MOHAMMAD ZIA, Petitioner,2 versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-773-569, A76-773-205, A76-773-376) Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 16, 2003 Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Twinckle K. Vaidya, Richard S. Bromberg, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret J. Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jacqueline R. Dryden, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Finally, while we do not have jurisdiction to co nsider the denial of the asylum claims as untimely, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denials of the requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against T orture as they are not subject to the one-year time limitation. See8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) 3 PER CURIAM: Zia Ul Hassan and his wife, Lubna Zia, and son, Mohammad Zia, natives and citizens of Pakistan, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"). The order affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge's order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reason discussed below, we deny the petitions for review. The immigration judge found Hassan’s and his family’s asylum claims were untimely and they failed to offer any explanation to demonstrate a change in circumstances or extraordinary circumstances excusing the late filing of the applications for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5) (2003). We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s ruling pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). SeeCastellano-Chacon v. INS , 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir. 2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft , 338 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3d Cir. 2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen. , 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 2002); Hakeem v. INS , 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001); Ismailov v. Reno , 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001). *(2003). However, in the ir brief, Hassan and his family do not specifically challenge the denial of these two forms of relief. 4 Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED
Ronjee Middleton v. State, 04-14-00678-CR (Tex. App. 2014)

Cou rt of Appeals of Texas

Filed: December 31st, 2014

Status: Precedential

Docket Number: 04-14-00678-CR

Fingerprint: b9907e254a35190f710ac5a0318ae24478850076

The State of TexasAppellee/s

r--3

en

■ I.

ro

1,

cn

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 29,

No. 04-14-00678-CR

Ronjee MIDDLETON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0666

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant filed motion to unseal Defendant's Exhibit 1, the juror

information sheets.
January 15, 2015

Regarding: Ronjee Middleton v. State, 04-14-00678-CR

Concern for the Motion to Unseal Juror Information Sheets from Prior Trial

To the Texas Court of Appeals:

As juror on the trial that convicted and sentenced Ronjee Middleton for aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon, became aware of his pending request to have the juror

information sheets unsealed.

My concern is the juror information sheets contain personally identifiable information

such as my name, address, etc. Given Mr. Middleton's criminal and gang-related

history, and his most-likely ongoing external contact with known gang members, this

raises concern for my family's safety.

Please ensure this letter of concern is filed with visibility to the appropriate court, and

presented to any decision makers in this motion, including presiding judge, panel, jury,

etc.

My request is for denial of the motion to have the juror information sheets unsealed. Or,

only demographically relevant information be extracted then released, not the entire

sheets (only race, sex, age).

The following page is from the document that my awareness of this issue came from.

Given this letter of concern may be made public, legal counsel has instructed me to not

use my name; this may again put my family at risk.

Thank you for understanding and deciding appropriately.

2: ^'-~
■■ , ■

j-*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 214 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 214

  On health care for Members of Congress and for the American people.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 17 (legislative day, May 16), 1994

Mr. Wellstone submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
               the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  On health care for Members of Congress and for the American people.

Whereas the American people want and deserve the same high quality health care 
        as Members of Congress;
Whereas the best assurance for our constituents that their health care needs 
        will be protected is to provide them with the same high quality care we 
        receive at a cost they can afford;
Whereas Members of Congress, like all Federal employees, are automatically 
        eligible under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) for 
        health care coverage, with no pre-existing condition exclusions, and 
        employers pay a significant portion of premium costs;
Whereas premiums, cost sharing requirements (such as copayments and 
        deductibles), benefits, and choice of caregivers vary among the plans 
        offered under FEHBP;
Whereas the health plan that offers the greatest choice of caregivers, the best 
        schedule of copayments and deductibles, and the best package of benefits 
        currently available through FEHBP is also the most expensive plan;
Whereas Members of Congress have sufficient incomes to allow them to enroll in 
        the best health plans offered under FEHBP without spending more than 
        three percent of their incomes;
Whereas the best health plans are not similarly affordable for middle- and 
        lower-income Federal employees;
Whereas all FEHBP plans are better than many health care reform proposals now 
        before Congress in that they offer a defined package of benefits with an 
        employer contribution;
Whereas improvements are necessary even to the best plan available under FEHBP, 
        including needed services such as full coverage for long-term care and 
        dental care, and improvements that can only be accomplished through 
        health care reform, such as expanding public health systems and 
        coordinating care among providers; and
Whereas the health and well-being of our Nation, and our ability to control 
        health care costs by covering everyone for a broad array of accessible 
        health services that will keep people healthy, require that Congress 
        enact the best possible health care reform legislation: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Congress should enact health care reform that 
guarantees everyone health care as good as the best health care that 
will be available to Members of Congress.

                                 <all>
```
39533.

#### MONTGOMERY v. HARDY ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Where a hearing on a motion for a new trial was continued six times and on the date last set for the hearing the court entered an order dismissing the motion for a new trial for want of prosecution and because no brief of evidence had been presented for approval, the judgment dismissing the motion for a new trial must be affirmed as against the only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions that the judgment dismissing the motion was contrary to law. *Oliver v. Benson,*211 Ga. 268 (85 SE2d 418); *Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. v. Bray*& *Co.,*127 Ga. 452 (56 SE 513); *Smith v. State,*86 Ga. App. 403 (72 SE2d 462); *Vinson v. State,*53 Ga. App. 224 (185 SE 529).

2. There was no assignment of error on the refusal of the court to continue the case because of the illness of movant’s counsel.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*

*121Decided May 25, 1962

Rehearing denied June 6, 1962.

*James L. Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

*Inslee M. Johnson,*contra.
Exhibit 99.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, W. Edd Helms, Jr., certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Edd Helms
Group, Inc.

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

         4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the registrant and have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

         6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: January 14, 2003             /s/  W. Edd Helms, Jr.
      ----------------             ----------------------
                                   W. Edd Helms, Jr., President and Chief
                                   Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-70,102] 

                    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on May 19, 2009, by a state workforce office on behalf of workers of Fairchild Semiconductor,                           ( print page 39116)                        Signal Path Organization, South Portland, Maine.                 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Accordingly, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of July 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-18652 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00012

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.D., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 307th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- 70

- DR

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O RDER

This Court, upon review of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record filed in this case, has

found that each co ntain the full name of the child involved in this appeal from a parental

- rights

termination.

Rule 9.8, titled “Protection of Minor’s Identity in Parental

- Rights Termination

Cases

. . . ,” states,

In an appeal or an original proceeding in an appellate court, arising out of a case

in which the termination of parental rights was at issue:

(1) except for a docketing statement, in all papers submitted to the

court, including all appendix items submitted with a brief, petition, or motion:

(A) a minor mus t be identified only by an alias unless the court

orders otherwise;

(B) the court may order that a minor’s parent or other family

member be identified only by an alias if necessary to protect a minor’s

identity, and

(C) all documents must be redacted accordingly . . . .

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.8(b)(1).

Therefore, because the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record fail to protect the minor’s

identity, we order the Clerk of this Court, or her appointee, pursuant to the inheren t power of this

Court, to seal the electronically filed reporter’s record and clerk’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: February 19, 2015
EXHIBIT 35.1



World Omni Financial Corp.

Servicer Compliance Statement

Pursuant to Item 1123

of Regulation AB



I, William J. Shope,
do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation,
and further certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the
Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 14, 2015 (the “Agreement”), among World Omni Auto Receivables Trust
2015-B, as Issuing Entity, World Omni Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and the Servicer, as follows:



(i)       A
review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Agreement, has been
made under my supervision.



(ii)       To
the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement
in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand as of March 9, 2018.



| | WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.
| | --------------------------
| |                           
| | By:                       



| | Name:  | William J. Shope       
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Title: | Group Vice President & 
| |        | Chief Financial Officer
Opinion issued March 18, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00618-CV

———————————

YPD TRUCKING CORPORATION, YORJAN PEREZ,

AND POLAR FREIGHT, INC., Appellants

V.

FAIZA BISMILLA BADARPURA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 19-DCV-266920-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants YPD Trucking Corporation, Yorjan Perez, and Polar Freight, Inc., 

have failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file 

brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief). After being notified on 

October 21, 2020 that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellants did not 
2

respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file 

a brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Hightower.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 140

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the peace and security

of Taiwan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 31, 1996

Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. ACKERMAN,

Mr. ANDREWS, and Mr. BROWN of Ohio) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the

peace and security of Taiwan.

Whereas peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits is in the

political, security, and economic interests of the United

States as specified in the Taiwan Relations Act (Public

Law 96–8), signed into law in 1979;

Whereas United States interests are served by supporting democracy abroad;

Whereas Taiwan is a model emerging democracy, with its

first presidential elections scheduled for March of 1996;

Whereas the 21,000,000 peace-loving people of Taiwan are

eager to join the international community;
2

•HCON 140 IH

Whereas in July and August of 1995, the People’s Republic

of China carried out a series of surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, live artillery, and joint air and sea forces

combat exercises in the seas 80 miles off the coast of

Taiwan;

Whereas the People’s Republic of China vows to hold more

rounds of military exercises;

Whereas these combat exercises caused serious concern for

the safety and security of the people of Taiwan, as well

as that of the Western Pacific region;

Whereas the People’s Republic of China continues to threaten

to use force against Taiwan for various reasons, including the pending election in Taiwan of its first president;

and

Whereas in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, the

United States is obliged to make available to Taiwan

such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain

a sufficient self-defense capability: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) declares that any attempt by the People’s

4 Republic of China to threaten the peace and security

5 of Taiwan is a threat to peace and security in the

6 Pacific and tantamount to a threat to the interests

7 of the United States;

8 (2) calls upon the President of the United

9 States to review the defense needs of Taiwan, in ac-
3

•HCON 140 IH

1 cordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, and to take

2 appropriate actions based on such review; and

3 (3) affirms that it is the right of the people of

4 Taiwan to determine the future status of Taiwan

5 without any interference from the People’s Republic

6 of China.

Æ
## MARYBETHM. NELSON Attorney atLaw

March 12, 2015 Court ofAppeals First District 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002 830 Apollo Lane • Houston, Texas 77058 office: 409.684.3067 • fax:817-533-1131 1830 Hwy. 87 • Crystal Beach, Texas 77650 marybethmnelson@yahoo.com

RE: 01-15-00199-CV; Correction ofemail address for attorney for appellee, Marybeth M. Nelson.
Dear Assistant Clerk: I noted on appellant's docketing statementthat my email address was incorrectly noted. The correct email is marvbethmnelson@yahoo.com. All else appears correctly. I appreciate yourtime and effort in this regard. Sincerely,

# ~M7f;fi Marybeth M. Nelson Attorney forAppellee, Jimmy Brill Cox

Cc: Wilfried P. Schmitz



# -M9YMACCEPTED 01-15-00199-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/12/2015 3:18:43 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-17-00211-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 2016-05293J

Style: In the Matter of D.A.K.

Date motion filed*: May 8, 2017

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: May 11, 2017

Number of previous extensions granted: None

Date Requested: June 26, 2017

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 12, 2017

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: This case involves a judgment of juvenile delinquency, and for that reason the briefing 

deadlines of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure will be applied without any further presumption of 

courtesy extensions. The State should be prepared to file its brief by July 12, 2017. All parties should plan 

for briefing to be completed no later than early August 11, 2017 so this appeal may be set for submission in 

September 2017.

Judge's signature: /s/ Justice Michael Massengale

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: June 6, 2017