alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONAS FARIN NOGUERA, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 09-73974 Agency No. A072-677-018
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 5, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: REINHARDT and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge. ** Petitioner Jonas Farin Noguera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for cancellation of removal. The IJ denied Noguera’s application on 

# FILED
NOV 19 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 Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Di strict Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.the basis that he filed a frivolous application for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6), but the BIA reversed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) determination on appeal. Instead, the BIA determined that Noguera was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he provided fals e testimony under oath, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6), and, as a result, could not demonstrate the good moral character necessary to obtaining cancellation of removal. Whether an individual is “under oath” for the purposes of section 1101(f)(6) is a question of fact. See In re R-S-J- , 22 I. & N. Dec. 863, 871 (BIA 1999) (remanding to IJ for determination wh ether individual was under oath). In order to be “under oath,” an individual must unde rstand the meaning and effect of being “under oath.” United States v. Bueno-Vargas , 383 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2004). Despite Noguera’s protests that he did not understand the meaning or effect of the oath, the IJ failed to find whethe r or not Noguera met that requirement. The BIA’s conclusion that Noguera could not demonstrate good moral character was based on its assumption that he was “under oath.” The conclusion must, however, be based on a factual finding. The BIA does not have the authority to find such facts in the first instance. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). Such a finding must be made by the IJ, and none was made here. Accordingly, we remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ to determine in the first instance whetherNoguera understood the meaning and effect of the oath. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16–18 (2002) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                  INTERSTAR SECURITIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
                      SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE


The  undersigned,  a duly  authorized  representative  of  Interstar  Securities
(Australia) Pty Limited,  (the  "Servicer"),  pursuant to the agreement  between
Perpetual  Trustees  Victoria  Limited,  Interstar  Securities  (Australia)  Pty
Limited,  dated as of December 3, 1999 (the  "Agreement"),  does hereby  certify
that:

1.   Capitalized  terms used but not defined in this Officer's  Certificate have
     their  respective  meanings set forth in the Agreement,  unless the context
     requires   otherwise  or  unless   otherwise   defined  in  the   Officer's
     Certificate.

2.   As of the date hereof,  Interstar Securities (Australia) Pty Limited is the
     Servicer of Interstar Millennium Series 2002-1G.

3.   This officer's certificate is delivered pursuant to the Agreement.

4.   A review of the  activities of the Servicer  during the calendar year ended
     June 30,  2003 and of its  performance  under  the  pooling  and  servicing
     agreement or similar agreements was made under my supervision.

5.   Based on such review,  to my  knowledge,  the Servicer  has  fulfilled  its
     obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement or similar agreements
     relating to the Trust  (including  the Master Trust Deed dated  December 2,
     1999  and the  Investment  Management  Agreement  dated  December  3,  1999
     throughout  such  calendar  year and,  except as set forth in  paragraph  6
     below.)

6.   The following is a description of any exceptions to paragraph 5 above:

7.   No significant deficiencies were detected.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of the Servicer,
has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 12th day of January, 2004.

INTERSTAR SECURITIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, as servicer



  /S/ SAM KYRIACOU
------------------------
Name:    Sam Kyriacou
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,

ZTE (TX), INC.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00493-ADA

ORDER SETTING MOTION HEARING HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for

MOTION HEARING by Zoomoom on Friday, July 16, 2021 at 11:00 AM.

set

IT 15th day of July, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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
Annual Report of Whitestone REIT (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Mastandrea, Chairman and 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.

| |  |                                      
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | /s/
 James C. Mastandrea             
| |  |                                      
| |  | James
 C. Mastandrea                 
| |  | Chairman
 and Chief Executive Officer

Dated this 31st day of
March, 2008

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5592 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5592

  To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing b-cyfluthrin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

 Mr. Cleaver introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing b-cyfluthrin.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING B-CYFLUTHRIN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Mixtures            Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          containing (RS)-a-                                                12/31/2015
                          cyano-4-fluro-3-
                          phenoxybenzyl(1RS
                          ,3RS;1RS,3SR)-2-
                          (2,2-
                          dichlorovinyl)-
                          2,2-
                          dimethylcycloprop
                          anecarboxylate (b-
                          cyfluthrin) (CAS
                          68359-37-5),
                          including
                          application
                          adjuvants
                          provided for in
                          3808.91.25.......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Timothy Devlin, Derek Dahlgren 

And Cory Edwards 

DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC

1526 Gilpin Avenue

Wilmington, DE 19806

Re: Civil Case No. 6:20-cv-00453 - Jenam Tech, LLC v. Google LLC

Our records indicate that you are not admitted to practice in this Court. Western District of 

Texas Local Court Rule AT-1(f)(1) states: 

In General: An attorney who is licensed by the highest court of a state or another 

federal district court, but who is not admitted to practice before this court, may 

represent a party in this court pro hac vice only by permission of the judge presiding. 

Unless excused by the judge presiding, an attorney is ordinarily required to apply for 

admission to the bar of this court.

You were included as an attorney of record on a filing in the above-named cause. If you are 

representing a party, please submit a motion requesting the Court’s permission to appear in the above 

captioned case. If you wish to file an application to be admitted in the Western District of Texas, the 

application forms and the Local Rules for the Western District of Texas are available on our website 

www.txwd.uscourts.gov. If you are an attorney who maintains his or her office outside of the Western 

District of Texas, the judge may require you to designate local counsel. (Local Rule AT-2). 

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact our office. 

Sincerely,

Deputy Clerk

JEANNETTE J. CLACK

CLERK OF COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS PHILIP J. DEVLIN

OFFICE OF THE CLERK CHIEF DEPUTY

800 FRANKLIN AVE., ROOM 380

WACO, TX 76701

June 2, 2020

Case 6:20-cv-00453-ADA Document 5 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No. 20-cv-00642

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Western District of Texas

JACK MILLER, ANNABEL CAMPBELL, MATTHEW 

PESINA, LISA PESINA, M.P., a minor, and 

J.G., a minor, CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, et al.

Leon Valley Police Department

6400 El Verde Road

Leon Valley, TX 78238

Solomon M. Radner, Esq.

Excolo Law, PLLC

26700 Lahser Rd., Suite 401

Southfield, MI 48033

(866) 939-2656

sradner@excololaw.com

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 1-9 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 1-9 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 81765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27845]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9030-3]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 11/07/2016 Through 11/11/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

    Notice:

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its 
comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html
EIS No. 20160269, Draft, USAF, IN, KC-46A Third Main Operating Base 
(MOB-3) Beddown, Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2017, Contact: Hamid 
Kamalpour 210-925-3001
EIS No. 20160270, Final, FTA, WA, Federal Way Link Extension, Review 
Period Ends: 12/19/2016, Contact: Daniel Drais 206-220-7954

EIS No. 20160271, Draft, BLM, ID, Bruneau-Owyhee Sage-Grouse Habitat 
Project (BOSH), Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2017, Contact: Michael McGee 
208-384-3464
EIS No. 20160272, Final Supplement, USFS, CO, Rulemaking for Colorado 
Roadless Areas, Review Period Ends: 12/19/2016, Contact: Jason 
Robertson 303-275-5470

    Amended Notices:
EIS No. 20160200, Draft, USACE, NY, Atlantic Coast of New York, East 
Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, Comment Period Ends: 
12/02/2016, Contact: Robert J. Smith 917-790-8729
Revision to Federal Register Notice Published 09/02/2016; Extending 
Comment Period from 11/17/2016 to 12/02/2016

    Dated: November 15, 2016.
Karin Leff,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-27845 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
### NUMBER 13

- 13

- 00 352

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ TEXAS DESCON, L.P. , A ppellant ,

v.
SOUTH TEXAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 389 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Texas Descon, L.P. , perfected an appeal from a n order entered by the

389 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C

- 0352

- 13

- H . Appell ee

has filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the issues on2

appeal are no longer in controversy because appellee has nonsuited all of its
counterclaims and the appeal is now moot.
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellee’s unopposed
motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appell ee’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED , and the appeal is
hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxe d
against the party incurring same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the
parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.").

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 10th day of October , 20 13

.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5549 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5549

To suspend temporarily the duty on recombinant staphylococcal protein A 
                                (56kDa).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

 Mr. Benishek introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on recombinant staphylococcal protein A 
                                (56kDa).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RECOMBINANT STAPHYLOCOCCAL PROTEIN A (56KDA).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Recombinant         Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          staphylococcal                                                    12/31/2015
                          protein A (56kDa)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3913.90.02)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### MEADOLAKE FOODS, Inc. v. ESTES.

No. A-2077.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 23, 1949.

Rehearing Denied April *27,*1949.

Joe A. Keith, Freeman, Wolfe, Keith & Milam, J. F. Holt and David H. Brown, all of Sherman, for petitioner.

Webb & Rogers and F. Neilson Rogers, all of Sherman, for respondent. "

PER CURIAM.

This suit is before, us upon application for writ of error. It is one for damages occasioned by reason of the purchase of «cows infected by Bang’s disease.

The jury found that the plaintiff below, who is respondent here, failed to use ordinary care to minimize the damages .sus-, tained by him, and that such failure was a proximate cause of a portion of the damages. No issues were submitted, and none were requested, seeking to ascertain the extent to which the damages were enhanced by reason of such negligence, or to which they might have been lessened by the use of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff. The burden in that respect was upon the defendant, who is the petitioner here.

In Belcher v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas, 92 Tex. 593, 50 S.W. 559, 561, which also involved the failure of the plaintiff to use ordinary care to minimize his damages, under facts similar to these, this court said: “ * * * If the plaintiff

showed negligence on the part of the defendant, he was prima facie entitled to recover all of the damages sustained, and the burden of proof rested upon the defendant to prove the negligence by which plaintiff enhanced the amount of the damage or failed to prevent the injury, as well as the extent to which such damages were enhanced, or to which they might have been lessened by the use of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff.”

In view of this rulé, the application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. Morgan v. Young, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 837.
NO. 07-02-0342 -CV IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L A APRIL 14, 2003

______________________________ LUIS IGNACIO AGUIRRE, AP PELLANT

V. NORTHW EST TEXAS HEA LTHCARE SYSTEM , INC. AND UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVIC ES, APPELLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE 108 th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUN TY; NO. 88,725; HON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPB ELL, JJ. OPINION LuisIgnacio Aguirre appeals from an o rde r of dism iss al in his s uit

against North west Texas Healthcare S ystem s, Inc. We dismiss for lack of j urisdiction.2

In May, 2001, Luis Ignacio Aguirre sued Northw est Texas Healthcare System s, In c., and Universal Health Services. Northw est answered the suit on May 16, 2001. Universal filed a Special Appearance on De cem ber 12, 2001. In due course, Nort hwest f iled a Motion to Dism iss, subsequently am ended, by w hich it a sserte d Aguirre’s alleged noncompliance with T EX . R EV . C IV . S TAT . A NN . art. 4590i (Vernon Supp. 2002). The trial court dismissed A

guirre’s claim w ith prejudice by order s igned on July 10, 2002. The order did not add ress A

guirre’s c laimsagainst U niversal. Th e ord er conta ined a Mother Hubbard clau se t hat “All relief requested and not expressly granted herein is DENIED.” Ag uirr e’sclai m s ag ains t N ort hwest w ere not

severe d fr

om his claims against Universal. Aguirre appealed the dismissal. Nort hwest h as move d todism iss theapp eal. Northwes t asserts that th e order of July 10, 2002, is interlocutory and not appealable. To be a final judgm ent from which an ap pea l may be taken, the judgm ent must dispose of al l parties and all issues in the case. See Lehm ann v. Har-Co n Corp ., 3 9 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). W hether a judici al decree is a f inal judgm ent m ust be determ ined from its language and the record in the case. Id .at 195. The inclusion of a Mother Hubbard clause--the statem ent, "all relief not granted is denied, " or e sse ntia lly those words–is not concl usive indication that a judgm ent rendered without a conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal. Id . at 203-04. An o rder thatdisposes of cl aims against one of m ultiple defendants does not adjud icate claims by or ag ainst other defendants. Id

. at205 . I f th e re cor

d re vea ls the existence of parties or claims not ment ioned in the order, the order is not final. Id . at 206.3

Aguirre’s claim s against Univers al were n ot addressed by the J uly 10th order. Acco rding to th e record before u s, thos e claim s cont inue. The o rder from whic h Aguirre app ealsis not final for purposes of ap peal. W e do not have jurisdi ction. Northwest’s mot ion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3.

Pe r C ur i am