alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CATALINO DELGADILLO-GARCIA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72323

Agency No. A073-419-050

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 10, 2015** 

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Catalino Delgadillo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”). 

FILED

MAR 17 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th

Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Delgadillo-Garcia’s

experiences with the Guatemalan guerrillas and the Guatemalan Navy did not rise

to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.

2003). In the absence of past persecution, Delgadillo-Garcia’s humanitarian

asylum claim necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). DelgadilloGarcia does not claim a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his past

experiences in Guatemala and does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s

determination that he has failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. 

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus,

Delgadillo-Garcia’s asylum claim fails.

Because Delgadillo-Garcia failed to meet the lower standard of proof for

asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding

of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

2 11-72323
Finally, Delgadillo-Garcia does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT

claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 11-72323
#### James P. Corcoran, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Appellant, v AIG Multi-Line Syndicate, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on March 15, 1989, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to compel arbitration and for a stay denied *(see, Corcoran v Ardra Ins. Co.,*156 AD2d 70). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 200 (Monday, October 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61179-61180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26422]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW142079]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

October 5, 2000.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas 
lease WYW142079 for lands in Johnson County, Wyoming, was timely filed 
and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date 
of termination.

[[Page 61180]]

    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and 
royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year 
and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively.
    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $158 
to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of 
the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management 
is proposing to reinstate lease WYW142079 effective July 1, 2000, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

Theresa M. Stevens,
Acting Chief, Leasable Minerals Section.
[FR Doc. 00-26422 Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4316-22-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP00-34-000]

On October 11, 2000, the Office of Energy Projects staff will attend a meeting with Algonquin Gas Transmission Company and Braintree Electric Light Department (Braintree) concerning the I-9 Lateral of the Fore River Project in Norfolk County, Massachusetts. The meeting will be held at the Braintree property (150 Potter Road, Braintree, Massachusetts) to discuss the proposed route on its property. Anyone interested in participating in the site meeting is welcome to attend. Interested parties must provide their own transportation.

Additional information about the proposed project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (202) 208-0004.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-25513  Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Order filed April 4, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00237

- CV

____________ MICHAEL NORVIL , Appellant

V.

BANK OF AMERICA , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . 1022597



### ORDER
This appeal is from a judgment signed December 3, 2012 . Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was due March 4, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, filed his notice of appeal on March 18, 2013
, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for
extension of time is A necessarily implied @ when the perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appe llant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal.While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to come forward

with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs ., Ltd. , 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.

C Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal on or before 12 days after the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;1 2.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit99.11**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS**

 

We refer to our report entitled “Report onReserves Data by Independent Qualified Reserves Evaluator or Auditor” datedMarch 6, 2006 evaluating the reserves attributable to Canadian SuperiorEnergy Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2005 (the “Report”).

 

We hereby consent to references to our nameand to the Report in the Company’s Amendment to its Annual Report on Form40-F/A to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We also confirmthat we have read the Revised Annual Information Form and that we have noreason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the informationcontained in it that are derived from the Report or that are within ourknowledge as a result of the services we performed in connection with theReport.

 

 

 
| Yours truly,                        |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                |
| **GLJ  PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.** |
|                                |
| /s/ Dana B. Laustsen                |
|                                |
| Dana B. Laustsen, P. Eng.           |
| Executive Vice-President            |

Calgary, AlbertaJune 16, 2006

 

 

----
Exhibit 11 STERLING BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings Three Months Ended June 30,

Six Months Ended
  June 30,2007

2006

2007

2006Income from continuing
operations, net of
  tax

$
3,791,438

$
5,382,291

$
7,363,111

$
11,867,183Income/(Loss) from discontinued
operations, net of
  tax


71,252


(516,806
)

(20,719
)

(561,565
)Net income available for common
  shareholders

$
3,862,690

$
4,865,485

$
7,342,392

$
11,305,618Weighted average common shares
outstanding


18,439,318


18,754,271


18,524,871


18,769,265Add dilutive effect of:Stock options


417,585


532,015


469,754


540,870Adjusted for assumed
diluted  computation


18,856,903


19,286,286


18,994,625


19,310,135Income from continuing
operations,  net of tax, per average common share:Basic

$
0.21

$
0.29

$
0.40

$
0.63Diluted

$
0.20

$
0.28

$
0.39

$
0.61Income/(Loss) from discontinued
operations,  net of tax, per average common share:Basic




($
0.03
)



($
0.03
)Diluted




($
0.03
)



($
0.03
)Net income per average common
share:Basic

$
0.21

$
0.26

$
0.40

$
0.60Diluted

$
0.20

$
0.25

$
0.39

$
0.58 42
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

D.T., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-155

)

J.M., )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 14, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Catherine L. Combee, Judge.

Michael M. Brownlee of The Brownlee Law 

Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Sara M. McKinley of McKinley Law Firm, 

P.A., Bartow, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

D.T., the father, challenges the final judgment of paternity. Although an 

Interim Order Pending Final Hearing dated July 19, 2016, included a child support 

guidelines worksheet as an attachment, no such worksheet was attached to the final 

judgment. And the child support calculations in the final judgment differ from those in 
- 2 -

the worksheet attached to the interim order without sufficient explanation in the record. 

See Dep't of Revenue ex rel. R.S.M. v. B.J.M., 127 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). 

We therefore reverse and remand for recalculation of child support. The final judgment 

of paternity is affirmed in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KELLY, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit
32





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 Annual Report of Access National Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Michael W. Clarke, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, and Charles Wimer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Corporation, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of their knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Corporation.





It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





/s/ Michael W. ClarkeMichael
      W. ClarkePresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerMarch
      29, 2010





/s/ Charles
      WimerCharles
      WimerExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 29,
2010
No. 72-5443.

#### Barnes *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1037.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Malcolm H. Mackey, Esquire, of Los Angeles, California, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed *nunc pro tunc*to serve as counsel for petitioner in this Court.
#### ROBINSON v. STATE.

No. 23174.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1945.

C.- O. McMillan, of Stephenville, for appellant.

Sam Cleveland, Dist. A tty., of Stephen-ville, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a case of passing a forged check; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The check was described in the indictment, as follows:

> “Stephenville, Texas, Oct. 1 1944 No.

> THE STEPHENVILLE STATE BANK — 88-357

> Pay to John Hill or order $30

> 30 and 00/100 100 Dollars

> John C. Boucher”

It is insisted that such check is susceptible of the construction that the two sums of money set forth therein were in *579conflict, i.e., “30 and 00/100” and “100 Dollars”, and that innuendo averments were necessary to explain which sum was intended. A motion to quash the indictment because of the absence of such innuendo averments was overruled.

If the check called for two different sums, it was uncertain and innuendo aver-ments were necessary. Lamb v. State, 67 Tex.Cr.R. 474, 148 S.W. 1088.

So the question before us is whether the check as described in the indictment is certain and definite as to the sum payable. If not, appellant’s contention is well taken.

We are constrained to agree with the appellant’s contention that the check, as set forth in the indictment, was such as to call for innuendo averments to make intelligible the amount stated therein. See McBride v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 213, 88 S.W. 237.

The State insists that the check, itself, will sustain the construction that the check was for $30 and 00/100, 'only. The evidence may not be looked to to supply defects in an indictment.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The fotegoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Brian D. Fairbank, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this amended Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Nevada Geothermal Power, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material

respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)] for the company and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date: April 20, 2006



/s/Brian D. Fairbank__________

Brian D. Fairbank

President and Chief Executive Officer





#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION; ZTE (USA), INC.; 

AND ZTE (TX), INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00487-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE 

BRIEF DEADLINES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) 

files this unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file a response to Motions to Dismiss1 filed 

by defendants ZTE Corporation; ZTE (USA), Inc.; and ZTE (TX), Inc. (“Defendants”), and would 

show as follows: 

1. On October 9, 2020, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, respectively, at Dkt. 

Nos. 23, 24, 25 (corrected by Dkt. 26 and 27). 

2. Pursuant to the Local Rules, WSOU’s deadline to file responses to the Motions is 

October 24, 2020. WSOU requests a three-week extension of its deadlines to November 6, 2020. 

3. This is the first extension WSOU has requested. The requested extension should 

cause no delay in the schedule.

4. WSOU has consulted with counsel for Defendants, and Defendants have indicated 

that they do not oppose this extension request. 

1 The motions were additionally styled with an alternative relief to transfer. For simplification, the 

motions will be styled herein as Motions to Dismiss. 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 28 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, WSOU respectfully requests that the deadline to file a respond to 

Defendant’s Motions, Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 25 (corrected by Dkt. 26 and 27) be extended to November 

6, 2020. 

Dated: October 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

 James L. Etheridge

 Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeff Huang

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this October 13, 2020, with a copy of this document via email.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 28 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
**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 Form 10-QSB of Worldwide Biotech & Pharmaceutical
      Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30,
      2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Wenxia Guo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





(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
                Company.











Nov
      14,
      2005       /s/
      Wexia Guo


Wenxia
      Guo


Chief
      Executive Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.