alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-12-0241 SAT Date: 3/30/2012 Print Date: 8/2/2013
Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:
Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1 Health: PMN ; Eco: intact material 2 3 Health: Eco: high concern for toxicity of incomplete incinera t p roducts to terrestrial organisms Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 1 1 PMN 3 2 2 Incin Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation Drinking water and inhalaiton for
Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; PMN negl; Incin Pdt rapid Keywords : Keywords: PMN: LUNG OVERLOAD LIVER; BLOOD; MALE REPRO; IMMUNOTOX; ONCO; AQUATOX Summary of Assessment : Fate : Fate Summary: P-12-0241-42 FATE:
S = N egl. VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E)POTW removal (%) = PMN 90 via sorption; Incin Pdt 0 Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = PMN >mo; Incin Pdt >mo Sorption to soils/sediments = PMN v.strong; Incin Pdt low PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Incin Pdt P3B2 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = PMN negl; Incin Pdt rapid
Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes ( p che m ). Concern for lung toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for high molecular weight polymers. For the potential incomplete incineration product, based on test data for the analogue concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral N OAEL = 50 mg/kg, LOAEL = 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL = 10 mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for

. Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments
fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value * algal

_ chronic value * Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _
Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r
- S < 0.001 mg/L at 20 C(P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *
SARs nonionic polymers SAR Class p olyme r -nonionicEcotox Category N onionic Polymers Ecotox Factors Comments: SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.5

                             ACUPAC PACKAGING, INC.
                         FIXED CHARGE RATIO COMPUTATION
                                (GUARANTORS ONLY)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 2, 1999 TO
                                                                  DECEMBER 31, 1999                  2000
                                                           ------------------------------       -------------
                                                               (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                                                        <C>                                 <C>
Income before taxes .....................................           $    931                   $    258
Fixed charges reflected in income (loss) before taxes
   Interest expense .....................................                  3                        750
   One third of rental expenses .........................                 62                        144
                                                                    --------                   --------
Total fixed charges .....................................                 65                        894
                                                                    --------                   --------


Income before taxes plus fixed charges above ............           $    996                   $  1,152
                                                                    ========                   ========
Fixed charge ratio ......................................             15.32x                      1.29x
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTOS MELVIN MENDOZAMEJANO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73441

Agency No. A098-434-275

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.

Santos Melvin Mendoza-Mejano, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

FILED

MAR 18 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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Mendoza-Mejano does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he abandoned

his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)

(issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition

for review as to his CAT claim.

In denying Mendoza-Mejano’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,

the agency found he failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future

persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their

decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077

(9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we

remand Mendoza-Mejano’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to

determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,

16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach MendozaMejano’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding

of removal. 

2 10-73441
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 10-73441
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





The undersigned, Mario A. Rivas, President and Chief Executive Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: July 29, 2010




By:
/s/ Mario A. RivasMario A. RivasPresident and Chief Executive Officer





This certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated by reference.





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 required by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Jesus VILLAGAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27225.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $200.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T K A O S A R A L A M, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 70619 A ge nc yN o. A 089- 885- 263 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K a os arA l a m , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of B angl a de s h, pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED JU L 23 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 70619 2 un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence the agency’ s f ac tual f i ndi ngs , appl y i ng the ne w s t andar ds gove rni ng a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i ons c r e a te db yth e R E A L I D A c t, Sh restha v. H older , 59 0 F . 3d 10 34 , 10 39 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) , a n dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on ba s e d on the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be tw e e n A l a m ’ s t e s t i m onya nd hi s de c l ar a t i on and d o c u m e n tarye v id e n c e r e g ar d in g th e tim in g o f a n a tta c ko n h is b u s in e s s . Se e i d. at 1 0 4 6 - 4 7 ; se e al

so G oel v. G on zales , 4 9 0 F. 3 d7 3 5 , 7 3 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( di s c r e pa nc i e s be tw e e n t e s t i m onya nd doc um e nt arye vi de nc e a r e apr ope rba s i s f or an ad v er se cr ed ib il ity f

in d in g ). T h e a g en cy re as o n ab ly re jected A lam ’s e x p lan a tio n f

o rth e in c o n s is te n c ie s . See R i ve ra v. Mukasey , 508 F . 3d 1271, 1275 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . I n the abs e nc e of c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , A l a m ’ s a s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g c la im s f

a il. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) .B e c aus e A l a m ’ s C A T c l a i m i s ba s e d on the s a m e e vi de nc e the a ge nc yf ound no tcr edi bl e, and h e poi nt s t o n o o ther e vi dence i n the re cord t o sho w i ti s m ore lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ldb e to rtu r e din B an g la d e s h , h is C A T c la im f a ils . See id. a t1156- 57. PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOEL NOONKESTER, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00223-O

 § 

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT §

HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., § 

§ 

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections 

thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion 

that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Court. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 77) and ORDERS Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and 

costs under the Offer of Judgment for 100 hours of service compensated at a rate $400.00 per hour 

for a total of $40,000.00, plus $9,796.53 in costs.

SO ORDERED on this 7th day of August, 2024.

_____________________________________

Reed O’Connor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00223-O Document 90 Filed 08/07/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1416
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

REGINALD DONELL RICE,

Petitioner,

DIRECTOR, ]'DCJ-CID,

Respondent Civil Action No . 3 :22-C\,1 -0522-C-BK

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner's successive habeas petition

should be dismissed without prejudice for lack ofjurisdiction.l

The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error

and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

are hereby ADoPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court. For the reasons stated

therein, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's successive habeas petition be DISMISSED

without prejudice for lack ofjurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

oateavay 4A ,zozz.

SA .CU INGS

R ED STATES DI CT JUDGE

rPetitioner has failed to file objections to the United States Magistrate J

Conclusions, and Recommendation and the time to do so lras now expired

udge's Findings,

.,2

U/' t

Case 3:22-cv-00522-C-BK Document 8 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 26
#### TUBBS v. STATE.

No. 22353.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1943.

Williamson & Nordyke, of Stephenville, for appellant.

*521Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft hy bailee of one head, of cattle, and his punishment was assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. In the absence of the evidence adduced upon the trial, this court is unable to appraise the matters presented in the motion for new trial.

No error having been found in the record before us, the judgment is affirmed.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-BS-283

IN RE: CONFIDENTIAL (DLR),

Respondent. DDN: 205-16

Bar Registration No. 376379 

BEFORE: Fisher and Easterly, Associate Judges; and Nebeker, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED – July 13, 2017)

Upon consideration of the petition of the Board on Professional 

Responsibility’s (the “Board”) pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(c), to suspend 

respondent indefinitely based on disability, and the Board’s motion to file under 

seal, and it appearing that neither respondent nor Disciplinary Counsel has

interposed any objection thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Board’s motion to file under seal is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is indefinitely suspended from the 

practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective immediately, and any pending 

matters be held in abeyance pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13(g). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is drawn to requirements 

of D.C. Bar R. XI, §§ 14 and 16, relating to suspended attorneys. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall file an affidavit in compliance 

with D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) with the Court and the Board and shall serve a copy of 

the affidavit on Disciplinary Counsel.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 10.46**CSK AUTO, INC.March 31, 2008Brian Woods[Address]Dear Brian:     In connection with your employment by CSK Auto, Inc. (the “Company”), the Company currentlyreimburses the costs incurred by you in connection with (i) your relocation to the Phoenix, Arizonaarea and (ii) temporary living arrangements in Phoenix, Arizona area.     The Company agrees that if, prior to the sale of your home in Dallas, Texas and the completionof your permanent relocation to the Phoenix, Arizona area (including purchase of a home inPhoenix), the Company enters into an agreement that, if consummated, would result in a Change inControl (as defined in the CSK Auto Corporation 2004 Stock and Incentive Plan), then from and afterthe consummation of the Change in Control and until the earlier of (A) the date that is eightmonths after the consummation of the Change of Control transaction and (B) the date that is sixmonths following the date of your termination of employment for any reason, the Company (and anysuccessor thereto) will continue to reimburse you for relocation, home sale and purchase, andtemporary living expenses on terms no less favorable than those provided to you prior to theconsummation of the Change in Control, which items shall include, but shall not be limited to, theterms set forth in Appendices A & B hereto and, to the extent not inconsistent withAppendices A & B, the CSK Auto, Inc. Relocation Policy as in effect and applicable to youprior to the Change in Control.*signature page follows*
 

 
Brian Woods
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF DATASTREAM SYSTEMS, INC.

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Datastream Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned C. Alex Estevez, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certifies, 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/ C. ALEX ESTEVEZC. Alex EstevezPresident and Chief Financial OfficerDatastream Systems, Inc.Date: March 23, 2005
(logo)  Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

2015 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of March 1, 2015 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-C27, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Ce1tificates, Series 2015-C27 **(WFCM 2015-C27)**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the "Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following:

 

1. All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of March 12, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

 

Date: March 1, 2016
M otion GRANTED and Order filed June 22 , 2018
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00466

- CV

____________ IN RE EDWARD ALEXAND ER, AD AM JOHNSON, WAYNE THOMPSON, JR., LILYNN CUTRER, AND KAREN AUCOIN , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO

- TRUSTEES , Relator s

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Probate Court No

. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s. 365,053 & 365, 053

- 404



### ORDER

June 7, 2018, relator s Edward Alexander, Ad am Johnson, Wayne Thompson, Jr., Lilynn Cutrer; a nd Karen Aucoin, Individually and as Co

- Trustees, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator s ask this court to order theHonorable Christine Butts, Judge of the Proba te Court No

. 4, in Harris County,

Texas, to set aside her order dated June 5, 2018, entered in trial court number s 365,053 & 365, 053

- 404, styled Preston Marshall v. Elaine T. Marshall, et al. Relator s claim respondent abused her discretion by ordering the m to produce documents, which they assert are protected by the attorney

- client and work product privileges

.
Relator s also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. R elator s ask this court to stay the June 5, 2018 order pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus.
It appears from the facts stated in the p etition and motion that relator s ’ request for relief requires further consideration and that relator s will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relators ’ motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER the June 5, 2018 order in trial court cause number s 365,053 & 365

- 053

- 404 , Preston Marshall v. Elaine T. Marshall , et al. , STAYED until a final de cision by this court on relator s ’ petition for writ of mandamus, or unt il further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell.