alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135668 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135668 

 COA: 270679 

Wayne CC: 05-011901-01

JAMAL DION THOMAS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 13, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHUN BING WU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73787

Agency No. A099-672-761

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 7, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Chun Bing Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

DEC 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review findings of fact for substantial evidence, Zhao

v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for

review. 

 Wu’s claim for asylum relief fails because substantial evidence supports the

agency’s determination that the harm Wu experienced did not rise to the level of

past persecution, see Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006), and

Wu failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution if

removed. See Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Because Wu failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows

that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief,

because Wu failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured

if he returns to China. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2
#### § 14.2 Purpose.

The purpose of these regulations is to authorize Departmental units to request financial records from a financial institution pursuant to the formal written request procedure authorized by section 1108 of the Act, and to set forth the conditions under which such requests may be made.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

PETER EDWIN BERNAT, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-3032 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed October 5, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Thomas S. Reese, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

 We affirm Mr. Bernat's conviction and sentence without prejudice to his 

raising his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for postconviction relief 

pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. 

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### Warren Jack KIDDER; Barbara Jeanne Kidder, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-70444.

Tax Court No. 24216-97.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*516Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 23, 2001.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Warren Jack Kidder and Barbara Jeanne Kidder appeal pro se from the tax court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue’s federal income tax determination for the tax years 1992 and 1993. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the tax court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact, *see Kelley v. Commissioner,*45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm.

The tax court did not err in determining that the Kidders failed to establish that a valid debt existed between them and Mr. Bogue for purposes of the bad debt deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 166. *See Zimmerman v. United States,*318 F.2d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1963).

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 248.4 Undertaking of indemnity. ( a ) If the check is found to be outstanding and unpaid and it appears that the proceeds are due the claimant, the disbursing officer will request the claimant to execute an undertaking of indemnity, Form 2244, in a penal sum equal to the amount of the check (or checks).
( b ) Except in the circumstances set forth below, a corporate surety authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury to act as an acceptable surety on bonds in favor of the United States or two responsible individual sureties will be required on the undertaking of indemnity. It will be the responsibility of the claimant in a foreign country to secure a certification as to the financial sufficiency of the individual sureties executed by one of the persons listed in, and in the manner prescribed by, the instruction appearing under the Certificate as to Sureties on the face of Form 2244.
( c ) Where the amount of the original check (or checks) is $200 or less, or the equivalent in foreign currency, one financially responsible individual surety may be accepted.
( d ) Unless it is determined that the requirement of sureties is essential in the public interest, sureties will not be required under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) If the officer authorized to issue a substitute check is satisfied that the loss, theft, destruction, mutilation or defacement of the original check occurred without fault of the owner or holder and while the check was in the custody or control of the United States or of a person duly authorized as an agent of the United States when performing services in connection with an official function of the United States;
( 2 ) If substantially the entire check is presented and surrendered by the owner or holder and the disbursing officer is satisfied as to the identity of the check presented and that any missing portions are not sufficient to form the basis of a valid claim against the United States;
( 3 ) If the owner or holder is the United States or an officer or employee thereof in his official capacity, a State, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, a municipal corporation or political subdivision of any of the foregoing, a corporation the entire capital of which is owned by the United States, a foreign government or agency thereof, a foreign central bank, or a Federal Reserve Bank.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 14, 2019

No. 04-19-00473-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HORTENCIA T. VARA, an Incapacitated Person

From the County Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7058-18

Honorable William R. Mitchell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack 

of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

It is so ORDERED on August 14, 2019.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of August, 2019.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 240.3 Electronic checks and substitute checks. ( a ) *Legal equivalence of electronic checks.* An electronic check for which a presenting bank has provided the guarantees described in § 240.4 is the legal equivalent of an original or substitute check for purposes of this part if the electronic check accurately represents all of the information on the front and back of the check that the presenting bank truncated. If a financial institution presents an electronic check for payment and the check is subject to return, Treasury may effect the return using an electronic check, but this part does not create any right for the presenting bank to return the check to the payee or any other person using an electronic check.
( b ) *Safekeeping of original checks.* Any financial institution that creates a substitute check or electronic check shall prevent unauthorized access to the original or substitute check that was truncated by storing the check, until it is destroyed, in a manner consistent with federal banking agency guidelines for safeguarding customer information.
www.gpo.gov

### §1616*l*. Community Health Aide Program for Alaska

#### (a) Maintenance of Program

Under the authority of section 13 of this title, the Secretary shall maintain a Community Health Aide Program in Alaska under which the Service—

(1) provides for the training of Alaska Natives as health aides or community health practitioners;

(2) uses such aides or practitioners in the provision of health care, health promotion, and disease prevention services to Alaska Natives living in villages in rural Alaska; and

(3) provides for the establishment of teleconferencing capacity in health clinics located in or near such villages for use by community health aides or community health practitioners.

#### (b) Training; curriculum; Certification Board

The Secretary, acting through the Community Health Aide Program of the Service, shall—

(1) using trainers accredited by the Program, provide a high standard of training to community health aides and community health practitioners to ensure that such aides and practitioners provide quality health care, health promotion, and disease prevention services to the villages served by the Program;

(2) in order to provide such training, develop a curriculum that—

(A) combines education in the theory of health care with supervised practical experience in the provision of health care;

(B) provides instruction and practical experience in the provision of acute care, emergency care, health promotion, disease prevention, and the efficient and effective management of clinic pharmacies, supplies, equipment, and facilities; and

(C) promotes the achievement of the health status objectives specified in section 1602(b) of this title;

(3) establish and maintain a Community Health Aide Certification Board to certify as community health aides or community health practitioners individuals who have successfully completed the training described in paragraph (1) or can demonstrate equivalent experience;

(4) develop and maintain a system which identifies the needs of community health aides and community health practitioners for continuing education in the provision of health care, including the areas described in paragraph (2)(B), and develop programs that meet the needs for such continuing education;

(5) develop and maintain a system that provides close supervision of community health aides and community health practitioners; and

(6) develop a system under which the work of community health aides and community health practitioners is reviewed and evaluated to assure the provision of quality health care, health promotion, and disease prevention services.

(Pub. L. 94–437, title I, §119, as added Pub. L. 102–573, title I, §111, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4539.)
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 347.13 Individual additions to retirement savings bond.

Fiscal Service is authorized to establish minimum amounts for initial and additional contributions to a retirement savings bond under this subpart.

[82 FR 6246, Jan. 19, 2017]
§ 19.205 Why is it important if a particular transaction is a covered transaction? The importance of a covered transaction depends upon who you are. ( a ) As a participant in the transaction, you have the responsibilities laid out in subpart C of this part. Those include responsibilities to the person or Federal agency at the next higher tier from whom you received the transaction, if any. They also include responsibilities if you subsequently enter into other covered transactions with persons at the next lower tier.
( b ) As a Federal official who enters into a primary tier transaction, you have the responsibilities laid out in subpart D of this part.
( c ) As an excluded person, you may not be a participant or principal in the transaction unless— ( 1 ) The person who entered into the transaction with you allows you to continue your involvement in a transaction that predates your exclusion, as permitted under § 19.310 or § 19.415; or
( 2 ) A(n) Department of the Treasury official obtains an exception from the Secretary of the Treasury to allow you to be involved in the transaction, as permitted under § 19.120.
#### § 1010.714 Withdrawing requests.

A person may withdraw a request for an administrative ruling at any time before the ruling has been issued.
Exhibit 10.5


OPTIUM CORPORATION


Employee
Notice of Grant of Non-Qualified Stock Option


Mark
Colyar  (the “Optionee”)
has been granted an option (the “Option”) to
purchase certain shares of Optium Corporation  common
stock (the “Stock”) pursuant to the Optium
Corporation 2006 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), as follows:


	
  Grant Date:

  	
  March 3, 2007

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Number
  of Option Shares:

  	
  31,500

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Option
  Exercise Price per Share:

  	
  $20.85

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Expiration
  Date:

  	
  February 28, 2017

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Tax
  Status of Option:

  	
  Non-Qualified

  



 


Vested Shares:  Except as provided in Stock Option Agreement,
and provided that the Optionee’s employment by the Company or any of its
subsidiaries has not terminated prior to any applicable vesting date, the
shares will vest 25% on March 1, 2008 and 2.08% monthly thereafter with the
final vesting occurring on March 1, 2011. 
Fractional shares are not exercisable until fractional shares equal a
whole share. In addition, there shall be acceleration of vesting of 25% of
original grant (or 100% of remaining unvested portion is less) following
termination without Cause or Constructive Termination (each term as defined in
Optionee’s Employment Agreement with the Company) within one year of an Acquisition
(as defined in the Plan).


By their signatures
below, the Company and the Optionee agree that the Option is governed by this
Notice and by the provisions of the Plan and the Non-Qualified Stock Option
Option Agreement, both of which are attached to and made a part of this
document.  The Optionee acknowledges
receipt of a copy of the Plan and the Option Agreement, represents that the
Optionee has read and is familiar with their provisions, and hereby accepts the
Option subject to all of their terms and conditions.  In the event that there is a conflict between
the Option Agreement and this Notice, the terms of Option Agreement shall
govern.  This Notice may be executed in
two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which shall constitute one and the same document.


	
  OPTIUM CORPORATION

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Eitan Gertel

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mark Colyar

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Eitan Gertel

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Mark Colyar

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  CEO, President & Chairman

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Address:

  	
  200 Precision Road

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Horsham, PA 19044

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


ATTACHMENTS:                                             Optium
Corporation 2006 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended through the Grant
Date, the Option Agreement, Plan Information Statement and IPO Final Prospectus
#### Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Dermott Grocery and Commission Company

5-4955

441 S.W. 2d 798

Opinion Delivered June 9, 1969

*1287
      *William J. Smith*and *Michael G. Thompson*for appellant.

TP. *K. Grubbs, Sr.*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The issue on this appeal is whether the appellant Missouri Pacific Railroad Company is entitled to collect from appellee Dermott Grocery and Commission Company, as consignee, unpaid charges on intrastate shipments of freight on bills of lading marked “prepaid.” The Railroad claims an absolute right to collect the unpaid freight charges under Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 73-1505—73-1507 (Repl. 1957). The consignee, after receipt of the goods, had paid consignor not only for the goods but also for the freight charges. On this basis it claims that the railroad is estopped to collect the charges.

The stipulated facts show that the Railroad, pursuant io Interstate Commence Commission Ex Parte Order No. 73, had extended a line of credit to the shipper, Horse Shoe Mills, Inc., and charged the freight bills herein sued for against the line of credit so extended. However, the Railroad has not received payment on the credit extended to Horse Shoe Mills, Inc., the latter having been adjudged a “no-asset” bankrupt.

This is a case of first impression under Arkansas law. Hovrever there are numerous authorities constru*1288ing 49 U.S.C.A. § 3(2) containing’ language similar to the statute here involved. See *Pitsburgh, C. C.*& *St. L. R. Co.*v. *Fink,*250 U.S.*577,*63 L. Ed. 1151, 40 S. Ct. 27 (1919). Even under the authorities construing this statute, appellant recognizes that it would be less than candid if it did not admit that there is a divergence of authoiñly on the estoppel issue. Here the record shows :

> “1. That the carrier made the full and proper charge for the freight shipped;

> “2. That the carrier itself marked the bills of lading ‘prepaid’ pursuant to a line of credit extended to the consignor under rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission; and

> “3. The consignee has paid both for the goods and the freight charges to the consignor.”

Under these circumstances Ave are unable to see how the consignee received or retained any preference contrary to the statute and hence how the public policy against preferences is involved at all. In *Griffin Grocery Co.*v. *Pennsylvania R. Co.,*93 Ga. App. 546, 92 S.E. 2d 254 (1956), and in *Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.*v. *National Milling Co.,*(D.N.J. 1967), 276 F. Supp. 367, one will find set forth the many reasons supporting the conclusion Ave have reached.

Affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 346.13 Taxation.

The tax treatment provided under section 409 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, shall apply to all Individual Retirement Bonds. The bonds are subject to estate, inheritance, or other excise taxes, whether Federal or State, but are exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed on the principal or interest thereof by any State, municipality, or any local taxing authority. Inquiry concerning the application of any Federal tax to these bonds should be directed to the District Director of Internal Revenue for the district in which the taxpayer resides.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6222(a)-1 Consistent treatment of partnership items. ( a ) *In general.* The treatment of a partnership item on the partner's return must be consistent with the treatment of that item by the partnership on the partnership return in all respects including the amount, timing, and characterization of the item.
( b ) *Treatment must be consistent with partnership return.* The treatment of a partnership item on the partner's return must be consistent with the treatment of that item on the partnership return. Thus, a partner who treats an item consistently with a schedule or other information furnished to the partner by the partnership has not satisfied the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section if the treatment of that item is inconsistent with the treatment of the item on the partnership return actually filed. For rules relating to the election to be treated as having reported the inconsistency where the partner treats an item consistently with an incorrect schedule, see § 301.6222(b)-3.
( c ) *Examples.* The following examples illustrate the principles of this section: Example 1. B is a partner of Partnership P. Both B and P use the calendar year as the taxable year. In December 2001, P receives an advance payment for services to be performed in 2002 and reports this amount as income for calendar year 2001. However, B reports B's distributive share of this amount on B's income tax return for 2002 and not on B's return for 2001. B's treatment of this partnership item is inconsistent with the treatment of the item by P.
Example 2. Partnership P incurred certain start-up costs before P was actively engaged in its business. P capitalized these costs. C, a partner in P, deducted C's proportionate share of these start-up costs. C's treatment of the partnership expenditure is inconsistent with the treatment of that item by P.
Example 3. D is a partner in partnership P. P reports a loss of $100,000 on its return, $5,000 of which it reports on the Schedule K-1 attached to its return as D's distributive share. However, P reports $15,000 as D's distributive share of P's loss on the Schedule K-1 furnished to D. D reports the $15,000 loss on D's income tax return. D has not satisfied the consistent reporting requirement. See, however, § 301.6222(b)-3 for an election to be treated as having reported the inconsistency.
( d ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable to partnership taxable years beginning on or after October 4, 2001.
For years beginning prior to October 4, 2001, see § 301.6222(a)-1T contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2001. [T.D. 8965, 66 FR 50545, Oct. 4, 2001]