alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA RODRIGUEZ-RAMIREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 07-74504

Nos. 08-73093

Agency No. A079-022-168

MEMORANDUM*

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Rosa Rodriguez-Ramirez, a native

and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order,

and denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

SEP 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74504

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de

novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005). In No. 07-74504, we grant the petition for review and remand. In No. 08-

73093, we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not have the benefit of our decision in Robles-Urrea v.

Holder, 678 F.3d 702, 711 (9th Cir. 2012), when it determined that RodriguezRamirez’s conviction for misprision of a felony was categorically a crime

involving moral turpitude. We therefore remand to allow the agency to conduct a

modified categorical analysis of Rodriguez-Ramirez’s conviction and, if

appropriate, consider her applications for relief.

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Rodriguez-Ramirez’s

remaining contentions in No. 07-74504. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Ramirez’s

motion to reopen because she did not submit any new, material evidence that was

previously not available and could not have been discovered or presented at her

prior hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

In No. 07-74504: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED;

REMANDED. 

In No. 08-73093: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 00-984.

#### Motel 6 Operating L. P. et al. *v.*Huttinger et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE> 1                                                EXHIBIT 11.

MUSTANG SOFTWARE, INC.

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(In thousands, except earnings per share)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>

                                                        Three Months Ended Twelve Months Ended
                                                           December 31,         December 31,
                                                          1996       1997       1996    1997
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>       <C>        <C>      <C>
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding      3,363      3,393      3,360    3,384
Common stock equivlents from outstanding stock options        0          0          0        0
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average common and common stock equivalents outstanding   3,363      3,393      3,360    3,384
===============================================================================================
Net Income (Loss)                                       $(1,035)   $  (517)   $(3,453) $(1,341)
===============================================================================================
Earnings (Loss) per share - BASIC (1)                   $  (.31)   $  (.15)   $ (1.03) $  (.40)
===============================================================================================
</TABLE>

(1) Fully diluted earnings per share have not been presented because the effects
are not material.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Date:  March      8, 2010 | /s/ Marc T.      Giles                                  |   |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                | Marc      T. GilesPresident      and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |   |
| Date:  March      8, 2010 | /s/ Michael R.      Elia                                     |   |
|                                | Michael      R. EliaExecutive      Vice President, Chief      Financial Officer and Chief      Accounting Officer                                                                                                            |   |
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 Date:  August 6, 2007
    /s/Jeffrey S. GormanJeffrey S. GormanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/Robert E. KirkendallRobert E. KirkendallSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)  23
# C_2022257EN.01001202.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

(Case C-218/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Rates - Temporary provisions for particular labour-intensive services - Point 2 of Annex IV - Renovation and repairing of private dwellings - Application of a reduced rate of VAT to repair and maintenance services for lifts in residential buildings)

(2022/C 257/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Respondent: DSR — Montagem e Manutenção de Ascensores e Escadas Rolantes SA

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Annex IV to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘renovation and repairing of private dwellings’, within the meaning of that provision, covers repair and renovation services for lifts in residential buildings, excluding maintenance services for such lifts.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6609

LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BARRY GALLOWAY; LEROY CARTLEDGE; CURRY; BUSH;

CATHERINE KENDALL; JAMES PARKER; COLIE

RUSHTON; MARY D. ANDERSON; SQUIRES; BARTON

VINCENT; GARY D. MAYNARD; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE

2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-03-740-18BC)

Submitted: July 14, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004

Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,

MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Edward Hendricks appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Hendricks v. Galloway,

No. CA-03-740-18BC (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2004). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Terrence GHENT, minor, by and through his natural mother and guardian, Mary Alice Fowler, and Mary Alice Fowler, Individually, Appellant, v. NEW YORK BRONZE POWDER COMPANY, INC., Appellee.

No. 77-1854.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 9, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1978.

Richard B. Burke, Miami, for appellant.

Walsh, Kahn & Gustafson and Mark R. Boyd, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The question presented by this interlocutory appeal is whether the trial court committed a gross abuse of discretion in setting aside a default entered against the defendant-appellee.1

The appellee was served June 29, 1977, through service upon the Secretary of State. Default was entered on August 2, 1977, for failure to plead. A motion to set aside default was filed by the appellee on August 9, 1977, and a proposed motion to dismiss was filed by the appellee on August 19, 1977. Also filed by the appellee was a document entitled “Addendum.” We are not furnished with a copy of this pleading.

Appellant asserts that no reference was made to the existence of a meritorious defense, but we are unable to determine this fact from the record submitted. Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed. See *North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber,*143 So.2d 849 (Fla.1962).

Affirmed.

1

. The appellant failed to file an appendix as provided for by Fla.App. Rule 4.2. We have only appellee’s appendix.
Government National Mortgage Association

Adjustable Rate Multiple Issuer Pool Numbers

CUSIP MIP # POOL 

TYPE

SECURITY 

INTEREST 

RATE

TERM 

YEARS

INITIAL PAY 

DATE

SECURITY 

MARGIN

TOTAL AMOUNT TOTAL # OF 

LOAN 

PACKAGES

TOTAL # OF 

MORTGAGES 

(Loans)

 NOTE:

 3 36179YRU0 MA9499 36179YRS5 MA9497 AF 4.000 30 03/20/2024 1.500 $1,444,020.00 Created February 23, 2024

 This is the Finalized list of the Adjustable Rate Multiple Issuer Pool Numbers for Issue Month of February 2024. FEBRUARY 2024 - FINALIZED 5.500 30 03/20/2024 1.500 $4,110,708.00 4 8 57 AF 4 36179YRV8 MA9500 36179YRT3 MA9498 AF 4.500 30 03/20/2024 1.500 $27,602,970.00 1

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT JANET KERR AT 1-800-234-4662, OPTION #3 OR 212-815-3221. 6.000 30 03/20/2024 1.500 $325,617.00 1 1 20 AF 3 36179YTV6 MA9564 5.000 30 03/20/2024 1.500 $8,613,683.00 3 AF
Jacket: 604-527

Title: FY19" DESKTOP PLANNER

Agency: DEPARTMENT OF DEFESE

Bid Opening: January 23, 2019 at 2:00PM

Bid Terms Discounted Total

$225,750.00 0.0% 0 days $225,750.00

$292,292.00 2.0% 20 days $286,446.16

$296,255.56 1.0% 20 days $293,293.00

*All American Broidery, Inc.

Contractor Name

Monarch Litho, Inc.

Cenveo Worldwide Los Angeles
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 127

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress, in

providing funds for any fiscal year for programs to assist the homeless,

should appropriate one-third of those funds for programs to assist the

homeless that are administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1993

Mr. STUMP submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

Congress, in providing funds for any fiscal year for programs to assist the homeless, should appropriate onethird of those funds for programs to assist the homeless

that are administered by the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that one-third of the funds appropriated for

3 any fiscal year for programs to assist the homeless should

4 be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for

5 programs to assist homeless veterans that are adminis6 tered by that Secretary.
2

HRES 127 IH

Æ
#### S. & H. HOWARD *vs.*The WILMINGTON AND SUSQUEHANNA RAIL ROAD COMPANY.

The court refused to make the plaintiff elect to proceed here or in the courts of another state, on a suggestion that he had commenced suits both there and here for the same cause of action.

Case. Narr Pleas. Issue.

*J. A. Bayard,*of counsel for the defendants,

moved the court, on affidavit filed, to compel the plaintiff to *elect*whether he would proceed w’ith this cause, or in another action which he had commenced in the State of Maryland, for the same cause of action. He stated that this was done in Randel’s case, in the late Court of Common Pleas.

*W. H. Rogers*and *MBeth,*for plaintiff.

*J. A. Bayard,*for defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

J. M. Clayton, *Chief Justice:*

We doubt the authority of the court to make such an order. The constitution opens this court to all suitors, and secures to them the administration of justice without delay. We don’t see how we can notice the pendency of a suit in the courts of another state, much less the cause for which that action was brought. *K judgment*in another state fpr the same cause of action may be pleaded in bar, but we know of no authoi’ity to arrest proceedings in our court, merely because a suit is pending in another court, of another state. No authority was shown in Randel’s case, and I always understood the order was made without argument.

So Mr. Bayard took nothing by his motion.
#### Johnny Randall ANDERSON v. STATE.

No. 38817.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 770.
#### Norah BEVERLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-176.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M. 4106 — Isola/Polyclad)

(2006/C 64/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
Exhibit 99



Supplemental Segment Information



|In thousands                       | Quarter EndedJanuary 31, | Nine Months EndedJanuary 31,
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ----------------------------
|                                   | 2006                     | 2005                        
|Orders Received:                   |                          |                             
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $  62,986                | $  65,628                   
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 49,242                   | 44,997                      
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 16,693                   | 17,263                      
|                                   | $128,921                 | $127,888                    
|                                   | =======                  | =======                     
|                                   |                          |                             
|In thousands                       | January 31,2006          | April 30,2005               
|Backlog:                           |                          |                             
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $   2,073                | $   1,223                   
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 42,658                   | 38,443                      
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 395                      | 3,943                       
|                                   | $ 45,126                 | $ 43,609                    
|                                   | ======                   | ======
7/30/2015

file.. ;n court of appeals 12th Court ofApnesig Disfr-'ct

LCATHYS. LUSK,

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

FILE COPY

•

PIERCE, JOSEPH MICHAEL Tr. Ct. No. 114-0648-13

COANo. 12-14-00073-CR

PD-0651-15

The appellant's pro se petition for discretionary review has this day been received

and filed.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
#### SMITH *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 40,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided December 13, 1962.*

Before Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, HornEy and Marbury, JJ.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated by Judge Allen for dismissing the petition, the application for leave to appeal is denied.

*Application denied.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          85,576
<SECURITIES>                                   111,294
<RECEIVABLES>                                  459,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    374,386
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,058,279
<PP&E>                                      23,232,341
<DEPRECIATION>                            (17,780,740)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,660,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          930,187
<BONDS>                                      1,681,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,717
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,878,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,660,510
<SALES>                                        428,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               439,728
<CGS>                                          324,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  542,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (143,046)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (133,046)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (133,046)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 455

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 16, 1994.

Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R.

4554) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and

for other purposes, points of order against the following provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule

XXI are waived: beginning on page 26, line 3, through line

8; beginning with ‘‘$30,000,000’’ on page 42, line 16,

through ‘‘housing;’’ on line 17; beginning with ‘‘section’’ on

page 43, line 1, through ‘‘$15,750,000’’ on line 2; beginning

with ‘‘Provided’’ on page 46, line 5, through ‘‘1993’’ on line

12; beginning with ‘‘Provided’’ on page 46, line 19, through

‘‘1993’’ on page 47, line 2; beginning with ‘‘Provided’’ on

page 47, line 14, through ‘‘$10,565,000’’ on line 20; beginning with ‘‘of which’’ on page 48, line 5, through ‘‘1993’’ on

line 9; the phrase ‘‘the foregoing $19,047,000’’ on page 48,

line 13; beginning with ‘‘of which’’ on page 50, line 10,

through ‘‘1993’’ on line 14; beginning on page 57, line 1,
2

HRES 455 EH

through ‘‘(7 U.S.C. 612c)’’ on line 12; beginning on page 58,

line 23, through line 25; beginning on page 59, line 16,

through page 60, line 5; beginning on page 69, line 1,

through line 6; and beginning on page 70, line 20, through

page 71, line 8.

Attest:

Clerk.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 11

- 00406

- CV

IN RE WILLIAM VANADO R, JR.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition and first supplemental petition f or writ of mandamus are denied,

and this Court’s October 21, 2011 stay order is lifted.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis , and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed Novem ber 2 , 2011

[ OT06]
EXHIBIT NO. 15

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.:





|Re: | Registration Statements on Form S-8,
|--- | ------------------------------------
|    | File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,     
|    | No. 333-26177, No. 333-42879,       
|    | No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463 and    
|    | No. 333-39754                       
|    |                                     
|    | Registration Statement on Form S-3, 
|    | File No. 33-58670                   
|    |                                     

With respect to the subject Registration Statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated March 8, 2004 related to our review of interim financial information.



Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such reports are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/ s / KPMG LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
March 15, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           (181)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (763)
<INVENTORY>                                     29,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,709
<PP&E>                                          37,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,975)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,501
<BONDS>                                        222,414
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,931
<SALES>                                        113,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,456
<CGS>                                           62,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    68
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,224
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,844
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       380
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.80
        

</TABLE>