alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NORTON v GUARDIAN TRUST CO., Exr.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10189.

Decided December 9, 1929

Mr. H. L. Deibel, Esq., Cleveland, for Norton.

Messrs. Smith, Olds, Smith and Shepherd, Cleveland, for Guardian Trust Co., Exr.

LEMERT, PJ., and SHERICK, J. (5th Dist) sitting

*108SHERICK, J.

It is conceded by the plaintiff in error that a residuary legatee’s rights are postponed to all other beneficiaries under the will and by the term residue is meant the balance left after payment of all debts of the estate and the payment of all specific, demonstrative and general legacies. This is, without doubt, the law of this State.

It now appears in this court and is readily admitted by plaintiff in error that he has abandoned his position first taken and now contends that the debts of said estate should be pro-rated against the legacies to the sisters and against the residue. We are of opinion that neither position of the plaintiff in error is tenable.

It is without doubt the rule in this state that where a widow elects to take under the terms of her husband’s will that she must abide by this decision and she is entitled to receive no further portion of her husband’s estate upless the will so specifically provides.

■ It is .contended that a widow entitled to dower in this state, when taking a legacy in lieu of dower, takes not as a devisee but as a purchaser. Were this court called upon to decide this principle under the rules of common law there might be some merit in the contention of the plaintiff in error, but it hardly need’s suggestion that in this state this question is fully cared for by statute.

Our attention has been called to 10,583 GC, with reference to contribution among legatees and devisees and that this supports the position of the plaintiff in error. This section, however, must be read in connection with the following section 10584 GC. It plainly appears therefrom that for the plaintiff in error to maintain the position which she assumes it must be shown from the four corners of the testator’s will that the testator so intended a pro rata rating amongst legacies. This the testator did not do and this court is not inclined to amend the statute in her behalf. The statute is clear, explicit and needs no construction.

We believe that the view of this court is fully supported by the case of Allen vs. Tressenrider, 72 OS. 77. The Young Men’s Christian Association vs. Davis, 106 OS. 366.

The questions raised in this case seem to have been directly before the court in Allen v. Tressenrider ,and it strongly appeals to this court that a rule of law long established by statute and court decision should not arbitrarily be set aside in view of the fact of the great number of wills now in existence and written upon the established well-known rule which the plaintiff in error seeks to set aside. It is, therefore, the judgment of this court that this - case be affirmed, which is done accordingly, and it is ordered that the cause be remanded to the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County, with instructions in accordance with this finding. Exceptions.

Lemert, PJ., concurs. Houck, J., not participating.
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jeremy Burton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
presented.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    JEREMY BURTONJeremy Burton President and Chief Executive Officer And Director


Date: June 12, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Serena Software, Inc. and will be retained by Serena Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Joseph Maldonado VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21281.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 5, 1967.

Gerald G. Reppetto, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief Crim. Div., Craig B. Jorgensen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,* District Judge.

*

 Russell E. Smith, United States District Judge, District of Montana, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was charged and found guilty on two separate counts of the possession and sale of narcotics, knowing the heroin had been illegally imported into the United States.

Three errors are alleged:

(1) The court allowed a .government agent to remain in the courtroom when the informer testified.

(2) Entrapment as a matter of law.

(3) Alleged insufficiency of the evidence.

We find no merit in any point, and af- . firm.
[Nos. 48364-1-I; 48461-3-I.

Division One.

November 18, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. D.L.W., et al., *Appellants.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 00-8-02558-1, Ellen J. Fair, J., entered March 21 and 28, 2001. *Remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
D. Cahill, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
      Michael D. Cahill
 Michael
D. Cahill
 President
and Chief Executive Officer
 January
29, 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XUQIANG ZHANG,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70080

Agency No. A087

- 866

- 963

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges

.

Xuqiang Zhang

, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigrati on Appe als’ order dismissing his appeal from an

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

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 70080

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substanti al evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034,

1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence suppor ts the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies in Zhang ’s evidence regarding the time frame of his

detention, whether he reported to the police as required , and whether he needed

stitches

. See id. at 104 7

- 4 8 ( adverse credibility finding reasonable under the

totality of the circumstances ). Zhang ’s explanation s do not compel a contrary

conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence

of credible testimony, Zhang ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light of this

disposition, we need not reach his remaining contentions regarding the merits of

his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 53 8 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

reach).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Zhang ’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and

Zhang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the

conclusion that it is mo re likely than not he would be tortured in China

. See3 16

- 70080

Farah , 348 F.3d at 1157.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 22, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00207

- CR

Roel CANTU

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texa s

Trial Court No. 11

- 11

- 0261

- CRA

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State ’ s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is extended

to February 20, 2014.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 22nd day of January, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Cou rt
§ 38.34 Recipients' obligations to disseminate equal opportunity notice. ( a ) A recipient must provide initial and continuing notice as defined in § 38.36 that it does not discriminate on any prohibited basis. This notice must be provided to: ( 1 ) Registrants, applicants, and eligible applicants/registrants;
( 2 ) Participants;
( 3 ) Applicants for employment and employees;
( 4 ) Unions or professional organizations that hold collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient;
( 5 ) Subrecipients that receive WIOA Title I financial assistance from the recipient; and
( 6 ) Members of the public, including those with impaired vision or hearing and those with limited English proficiency.
( b ) As provided in § 38.15, the recipient must take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others and that this notice is provided in appropriate languages to ensure meaningful access for LEP individuals as described in § 38.9.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report**
 
2008 | 2009
 
SuDoc Number:EP 2.2:AN 7/
Item Number:0473-A-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000983981
 
September 27, 2018
#### § 500.56 Replacement of Certificate of Registration or Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate.

If a Certificate of Registration or a Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate is lost or destroyed, a duplicate certificate may be obtained by the submission to the regional office that issued it or to any regional office of the Wage and Hour Division, of a written statement explaining its loss or destruction, indicating where the original application was filed and requesting that a duplicate be issued.

[82 FR 2227, Jan. 9, 2017]
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Vocational Rehabilitation /
              - 12.8 Vocational Rehabilitation—Change in the Number of Applicants

## Table 12.8: Vocational Rehabilitation—Change in the Number of Applicants: 2010 to 2011

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
#### § 451.2 General.

A “labor organization” under the Act must qualify under section 3(i). It must also be engaged in an industry affecting commerce. In accordance with the broad language used and the manifest congressional intent, the language will be construed broadly to include all labor organizations of any kind other than those clearly shown to be outside the scope of the Act.
§ 2704.103 Proceedings covered. ( a ) The Act applies to adversary adjudications conducted by this Commission. These are adjudications before the Commission arising under the Mine Act in which the position of the Secretary of Labor is represented by an attorney or other representative who enters an appearance and participates in the proceeding. For this Commission, the types of proceedings generally covered include: ( 1 ) Contests of citations or orders issued under section 104 or 107 of the Mine Act (30 U.S.C. 814, 817);
( 2 ) Contests of penalties proposed under section 105 (a) and (b) of the Mine Act (30 U.S.C. 815(a), (b));
( 3 ) Challenges to claims of discrimination under section 105(c) of the Mine Act (30 U.S.C. 815(c)) where the Secretary of Labor represents the miner.
( b ) The Commission may also designate a proceeding not listed in paragraph (a) of this section as an adversary adjudication for purposes of the Act by so stating in an order initiating the proceeding or designating the matter for hearing. The Commission's failure to designate a proceeding as an adversary adjudication shall not preclude the filing of an application by a party who believes the proceeding is covered by the Act; whether the proceeding is covered will then be an issue for resolution in proceedings on the application.
( c ) If a proceeding includes both matters covered by the Act and matters specifically excluded from coverage, any award made will include only fees and expenses related to covered issues.
[47 FR 1001, Mar. 9, 1982, as amended at 71 FR 54905, Sept. 20, 2006]
#### § 453.26 Powers of the Secretary of Labor to exempt.

Section 502(a) of the Act provides that when in the opinion of the Secretary of Labor a labor organization has made other bonding arrangements which would provide the protection required at comparable cost or less, he may exempt such labor organization from placing a bond through a surety company holding a grant of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury under the Act of July 30, 1947 (6 U.S.C. 6-13), as acceptable surety on Federal bonds.

[30 FR 14926, Dec. 2, 1965]
§ 2570.159 Review by the Secretary. ( a ) A request for review by the Secretary of an appealable decision of the administrative law judge may be made by any party. Such a request must be filed within 20 days of the issuance of the final decision or the final decision of the administrative law judge will become the final agency order for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.*
( b ) A request for review by the Secretary shall state with specificity the issue(s) in the administrative law judge's final decision upon which review is sought. The request shall be served on all parties to the proceeding.
( c ) The review by the Secretary shall not be a de novo proceeding but rather a review of the record established by the administrative law judge.
( d ) The Secretary may, in his or her discretion, allow the submission of supplemental briefs by the parties to the proceeding.
( e ) The Secretary shall issue a decision as promptly as possible, affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, the decision under review, and shall set forth a brief statement of reasons therefor. Such decision by the Secretary shall be the final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704.
§ 4207.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to prescribe rules, pursuant to section 4207(a) of ERISA, for reducing or waiving the withdrawal liability of certain employers that have completely withdrawn from a multiemployer plan and subsequently resume covered operations under the plan. This part prescribes rules pursuant to which the plan must waive the employer's obligation to make future liability payments with respect to its complete withdrawal and must calculate the amount of the employer's liability for a partial or complete withdrawal from the plan after its reentry into the plan. This part also provides procedures, pursuant to section 4207(b) of ERISA, for plan sponsors of multiemployer plans to apply to PBGC for approval of plan amendments that provide for the reduction or waiver of complete withdrawal liability under conditions other than those specified in section 4207(a) of ERISA and this part.
( b ) *Scope.* This part applies to multiemployer plans covered under title IV of ERISA, and to employers that have completely withdrawn from such plans after September 25, 1980, and that have not, as of the date of their reentry into the plan, fully satisfied their obligation to pay withdrawal liability arising from the complete withdrawal.
#### § 408.8 Terminal trusteeship information report.

There shall be filed at the same time that the terminal trusteeship financial report is filed a terminal trusteeship information report on Form LM-16. If in answer to Item 6 of Form LM-16, there was (a) a convention or other policy determining body to which the subordinate organization sent delegates or would have sent delegates if not in trusteeship or (b) an election of officers of the labor organization assuming trusteeship, Form LM-15A should be used to report the required information with respect thereto.

[40 FR 58856, Dec. 19, 1975]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

AMANDA JAMES

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 00 6

- C R

Appeal from the

244th District Court

of Ector County, Texas 1

(TC# C

- 17

- 1111

- CR )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Amanda James has filed a motion to withdraw h er appeal, stating that s he no

longer wishes to proceed with h er appeal

. We construe this as a motion to voluntarily dismiss her

own appeal

. The Court grants Appellant’s motion and dismisses this appeal. See T EX .R.A PP .P.

42.2 (governing voluntary dismissals in criminal cases).

April 9, 2020

YVONNE T. RO DRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

1 We hear this on transfer from the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Eastland. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 41.3.