alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Circuit Judge , United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by design ation.

*** After examining the briefs and appellate record, t his panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFiled 8/23/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
LARRY DON NED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. LARRY A. FIELDS, SHERI VINCENT, R. MICHAEL CODY, ERICA DUNN,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-6376 (D.C. No. CIV-95-348-T) (W.D. Okla. )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA, ALDISERT, ** and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. ***

Plaintiff Larry Don Ned seeks review of the distric t court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on his civil rights complaint. Our jurisdiction-2-

over this appeal arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We construe plaintiff’s pro se pleadings liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerne r , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). We review the court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co. , 50 F.3d 793, 796 (10th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s complaint contended that defendants 1) violated his due process rights in connection with a disciplinary matter inv olving a magazine subscription, 2) discriminated against him on racial grounds whenthey refused a requested cell transfer, and 3) violated the Eighth Amendment by f ailing to prevent spider bites in his cell. In his response to defendant’s motionto dismiss or for summary judgment, plaintiff moved for appointment of counse l and an evidentiary hearing. He also alleged that defendants 4) denied him adequ ate access to the courts due to their control of the law library, and 5) failed to give him proper medical treatment. After our careful review of the record on appeal an d due consideration of the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set f orth in the district court’s order-3-

dated September 19, 1995, the judgment of the Unite d States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Plai ntiff’s motion for class certification and appointment of counsel is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund
III, L.P. (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and
Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify 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 result of operations of the
      Partnership.








/s/WILFRED N. COOPER,
JR.


Wilfred
N. Cooper, Jr.


President
and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date:  August
6, 2010
From: ndvenezia@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:49:20 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Nancy Venezia

Ballwin, MO 63021
Exhibit 32.2



Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Smart & Final Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 9, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard N. Phegley              
|Richard N. Phegley November 16, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000875579
<NAME>                          WorldWideWeb Institute.com, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                   US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                              APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                          3782413
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     99535
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                4116680
<PP&E>                                                          1059735
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   272112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  7929970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            799796
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                         160
<COMMON>                                                           9779
<OTHER-SE>                                                     (7120395)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    7929970
<SALES>                                                          726001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 726001
<CGS>                                                            511224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   2336084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                1781373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                13125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (3902680)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (3902680)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (3902680)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.40)



</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

April 23, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00241

- CR

Antonio LONGORIA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR1413 The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal has been filed in this appeal. The trial court has certified that the underlying criminal case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”

W e ORDER the trial court clerk to file an electronic clerk’s r ecord within TEN DAYS of the date of this order containing the following documents:

1. all pre

- trial orders and the related pre

- trial motions;

2. the Court’s Admonishments, the defendant’s Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony, and any other stipulations, and all other documents relating to the
defendant ’ s plea bargain;

3. the Judgment;

4. all postjudgment motions and orders;

5. the Notice of Appeal;

6. the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. the Criminal Docket Sheet.We DIRECT the clerk o f this court to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record,

the trial court clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of thi s court.

_________ ________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of April, 2019

.

____ _______________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000875194
<NAME> CATHERINES STORE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                           4,465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     52,257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,194
<PP&E>                                          67,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                (34,336)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,637
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,278
<SALES>                                         76,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,452
<CGS>                                           51,109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,190
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,718
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,472
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.34
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of K & Z Place, Inc., Petitioner, v Thomas A. Duffy, Jr., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 966]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority, dated July 26, 1993, which, after a hearing, suspended the petitioner’s liquor license for a period of 15 days and imposed a $1,000 bond claim.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law and as a matter of discretion, to the extent that the determination is *590modified by striking the imposition of the 15-day license suspension and the $1,000 bond claim; as so modified, the determination is confirmed and the matter is remitted to the respondent for the imposition of a new penalty not to exceed a $1,000 bond claim.

The respondent’s determination that the petitioner sold an alcoholic beverage to an individual under the age of 21 in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 229).

The petitioner’s contention that the use of an undercover police officer under the specific circumstances of this case constituted entrapment is being raised for the first time in this Court (see, *Shelton v Shelton,*151 AD2d 659) and, in any event, is without merit.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find the penalty to be excessive to the extent indicated (see, *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra).*Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDER GARCIA

- DIAZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 73096 Agency No. A205

- 385

- 710

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Eder Garcia

- Diaz , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration A ppeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

* 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

NOV 12 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 73096

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. We review de novo claims of due proc ess violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for
review.
Garcia

- Diaz ’s challenges to the BIA’s streamlining procedure fail. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft , 350 F.3d 845, 850

- 52 (9th Cir. 2003) ( BIA’s streamlined decision did not violate due process ); see also Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia

- Diaz
f ailed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder , 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground ) ; Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”)

. Thus,
Garcia

- Diaz’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia

- Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See3 19

- 73096

Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067

- 68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture)

. The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George S. Smith, Appellant.

[— NYS2d —]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered December 10, 1993, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defense counsel has made application to be relieved of her assignment as defendant’s attorney contending that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal. Having reviewed the record and defense counsel’s brief, we agree with defense counsel’s contention. In view of this, the judgment is affirmed and defense counsel’s application to be relieved of assignment is granted.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. *891Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUB.

CASE NO. CV06-0204JCC - 1

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married

individual, d/b/a ‘GORDONWORKS.COM';

OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC., a

Washington limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware

corporation d/b/a

ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a

ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT

LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1-X,

Defendants.

NO. CV06-0204JCC

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Roger M. Townsend of the law firm of Newman &

Newman, Attorneys at Law, LLP, hereby withdraws his appearance on behalf of

Defendants Virtumundo, Inc., Adknowledge, Inc. and Scott Lynn in the above matter. 

Defendants’ substituting counsel is Randall Moeller, of the law firm Newman &

Newman, Attorneys at Law, LLP. Additionally, Newman & Newman, Attorneys at Law,

LLP will continue to be counsel of record through Derek A. Newman, who initially 

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 140 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 140

Dockets.Justia.com
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUB.

CASE NO. CV06-0204JCC - 2

appeared on behalf of Defendants. Defendants respectfully request that all notices,

pleadings and further correspondence be addressed to Mr. Newman and Mr. Moeller as

stated herein. 

. 

DATED this 13th day of July, 2007.

NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

By: _____________________________________

Roger M. Townsend, WSBA No. 25525

505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800 Phone

(206) 274-2801 Fax

Withdrawing Attorney for Defendants

NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

By: _____________________________________

Randall Moeller, WSBA No. 21094

505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800 Phone

(206) 274-2801 Fax

Substituting Attorney for Defendants

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 140 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
No. 65202.

#### Getz Bros. & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/9196 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ball cocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United, States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C.D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 66575.

#### Kent’s Sporting Goods and George J. Young *v.*United States,

protest 61/6304 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rubber face masks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63864, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 61582.

#### E. Leitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 276649-K, etc. (New York).

*458Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts for enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, the claim of the plaintiffs at 20 percent was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 723 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 10, 2007.
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. EXPENSES OF SELECT COMMITTEE.

    (a) Payment of Expenses.--There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts 
of the House of Representatives not more than $300,000 for the expenses of the 
select committee established under House Resolution 611, as agreed to August, 3, 
2007 (hereafter referred to as the ``select committee'').
    (b) Consultants.--The select committee shall be treated as a standing 
committee of the House for purposes of section 202(i) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 72a(i)).
    (c) Vouchers.--Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the select committee, signed by the chairman of such committee, 
and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.
    (d) Regulations.--Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```