alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The DHS agencies that participate in the TFF are deemed to be Treasury law enforcement organizations for

purposes of the Treasury forfeiture program. See 31 U.S.C. § 9703(o). Accordingly, in past circumstances, DHSbureau counsel in consultation with other relevant regulations and with TEOAF counsel, have determined that the

prohibition applies to employees of DHS agencies participating in the TFF.

DATE: November 28, 2014SUBJECT: Restrictions on Purchase of Forfeited Property

1. PURPOSE. This Department of the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) Directive

No. 1 provides guidance concerning the purchase of forfeited property.

2. SCOPE. This Directive applies to employees of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), andsimilar policies have been interpreted to apply to employees of the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) agencies participating in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF).

3. POLICY. Treasury employees are prohibited from purchasing property, directly or indirectly, that is

owned by the Government and under control of the employee's bureau or sold under the direction or

incident to the functions of the employee's bureau. Purchase of property forfeited by another federal

agency or bureau is discouraged.

4. GUIDANCE.A. The objective of this policy is to protect the integrity of the asset forfeiture program, and to ensure that

there is no actual or apparent use of inside information by employees wishing to purchase such property.

This policy is consistent with Treasury regulations, specifically, 5 C.F.R. § 3101.103.

B. DHS and its components have similar restrictions on the purchase of forfeited property. DHS

employees should contact the Designated Agency Ethics Official, or the appropriate Office of Chief or

Legal Counsel to discuss the applicable ethics rules, policies and regulations.1C. Waiver. An employee may make a purchase that is otherwise prohibited when a written waiver of the

prohibition has been given to the employee by an agency designee with the advice and legal clearance of

the Designated Agency Ethics Official, or the appropriate Office of Chief or Legal Counsel. Such waivers

may be granted only upon a determination that the waiver is not otherwise prohibited by law and that, in

the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of the particular circumstances, the purchase of the

asset will not raise a question as to whether the employee used his or her official position or inside

information to obtain an advantageous purchase or create an appearance of loss of impartiality in the

performance of the employee’s duties. Please consult with the Designated Agency Ethics Official, or theappropriate Office of Chief or Legal Counsel for more information.

5. AUTHORITY. 31 U.S.C. § 9703; 5 C.F.R. § 3101.103; Treasury Directive 27-03, "Organizations andFunction of the Office of the Assistant Secretary (Enforcement)"; Delegation Memorandum dated May 19,
7. CANCELLATION. TEOAF Directive No. 1, 

Purchase or Personal Use of Forfeited Property by

Treasury Employees,” October 1, 1993, is hereby superseded.8. EFFECTIVE DATE. November 28. 2014.

IS/

John M. Farley

Acting Director

TEOAF
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                      to
  INTEGRATED DATA CORP FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.
                                       Including
                                       Steel, Hector & Davis LLP

                                     200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4000
                                     Miami, FL  33131-2398

                                     Office:  +1.305-577-7000
                                     Fax:  +1.305.577.7001

                                          Direct:  +1.305.577.7043
                                          pmartinezfraga@ssd.com


                                     November 27, 2007

VIA E-MAIL, FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Patricia Rose-Marie Cassells
Patricia Cassells & Associates, P.A.
1111 Brickell Avenue, 11th Floor
Miami, Florida  33131-3112

     Re:  Island Premier Resorts, Ltd. v. Montana Holdings Limited, a
          Bahamian Company, Integrated Data Corp., a Delaware SEC
          Corporation, John Mittens, Individually, Abe Carmel, Individually,
          Thor Ibsen, Individually, Neil A. Bains, Individually

Dear Ms. Cassells:

     On Wednesday, November 21, 2007, we notified you by letter, provided to
you pursuant hand-delivery, e-mail, and U.S. Mail, that Island Premier
Resorts, Ltd. ("Island Premier") is a client of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
L.L.P. ("Squire Sanders").  This letter clearly indicated the issues
attendant to the draft complaint you sent to Luther H. McDonald on November
13, 2007, and the time sensitive nature of our request.

     The letter respectfully requested your immediate attention to this
matter, which your draft complaint precipitated.  At this juncture, five days
have passed since you received our correspondence.  Yet, you have elected to
ignore our missive.  Additionally, Squire Sanders repeatedly has contacted
your office to no avail.  In furtherance of our request, a retraction letter
should have been sent for our review.  Again, however, we are yet to receive
any response from your office.  Without your immediate attention to this
matter we will have no recourse but to proceed under the assumption that you
are unwilling to cooperate with or acknowledge Island Premier's request.
Please contact me by the end of business (5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time)
today, Tuesday, November 27, so that we may attempt to amicably resolve this
matter.

                                     Very truly yours,

                                     /s/ Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga

                                     Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga

cc:     Charles Abele, Jr.
        Leah B. Storie
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 51996PC0634

**Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing conditions for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway between the European Community on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic on the other  /* COM/96/0634 FINAL - CNS 96/0301 */***Official Journal C 068 , 05/03/1997 P. 0011*

Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing conditions for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway between the European Community on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic on the other (97/C 68/08) COM(96) 634 final - 96/0301(CNS)

(Submitted by the Commission on 13 December 1996)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 75 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2) and the first subparagraph of Article 228 (3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas the Agreement establishing conditions for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway between the European Community on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic on the other should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1 

The Agreement establishing conditions for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway between the European Community on the one hand, and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Slovak Republic on the other, the Protocols annexed thereto and the declarations attached thereto are hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.

The text of the Agreement as well as the Protocols annexed thereto are attached to this Decision.

Article 2 

The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, deposit the act of approval provided for in Article 24 of the Agreement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,174
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             151
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,989
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,125
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,822
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,826
<LOANS>                                         63,319
<ALLOWANCE>                                        818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,898
<DEPOSITS>                                      79,633
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,862
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                821
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           302
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  90,898
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,511
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  133
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    68
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,712
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 571
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 648
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,064
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       70
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    353
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       219
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.85
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       314
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    27
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   778
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       49
<RECOVERIES>                                        19
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  818
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               818
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENDY YAKARELY CRUZ-HERRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-258

Agency No.

A201-400-703

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Wendy Yakarely Cruz-Herrera, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions 

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision deeming her applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

SEP 26 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-258

Torture (“CAT”) abandoned. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for abuse of discretion a decision to deem an application abandoned.

Gonzalez-Veliz v. Garland, 996 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2021). We review de novo

claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. 

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in finding Cruz-Herrera abandoned 

her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection by 

failing to complete the biometrics requirement before the deadline imposed by the 

IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.10 (“Failure to comply with processing requirements for 

biometrics ... within the time allowed will result in dismissal of the application, 

unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.”); 

Gonzalez-Veliz, 996 F.3d at 948 (no abuse of discretion in finding application 

abandoned for failure to provide timely biometrics). 

Cruz-Herrera’s claims the agency violated due process by conducting her 

hearing without counsel and not granting additional time to find new counsel fail 

because she has not shown error where the record indicates she was represented by 

counsel at the hearing and did not request a continuance. See Padilla-Martinez v. 

Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a 

petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
3 23-258

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### Court of Ap peals, State of Michigan ORDER People of Michigan v Harry Maine Jr. Docket No. 328475 LC o. 15 - 000907 - fC Cy nthia Diane Stephens Presiding Judge Henry Will i am Saad Patrick M. Meter

Judges Th e Court orders that the October I 0, 20 1 6 op ini on is hereby AMENDED to correct a clerical error. The opinion is corrcct1.:d to re ad ov ember 10, 2016 as the date of the opi ni on. In all other respects , the opinion remains unchanged.

A true copy entered and ce rtifi ed by Jerome W. Zimme r Jr., Chief Ckrk. on 

# NOV 16 2016

------ Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARTIN
INDUSTRIES' FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 27, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                           9,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                       449
<INVENTORY>                                     18,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,670
<PP&E>                                          23,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,870
<BONDS>                                          7,731
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,213
<SALES>                                         43,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,141
<CGS>                                           34,133
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    17
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (150)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (36)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (318)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (318)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.04)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.04)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The earnings per share ("EPS") information has been prepared in accordance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 128, Earnings Per Share.  As
such, basic EPS and diluted EPS have been entered in place of primary and fully
diluted, respectively.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 1 

AGREEMENT 

UNDER TEX. R. CIV. P. 11 

Case 3:22-cv-01366-S Document 3-1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 155
June 20, 2022 

Via Email - rhellner@wshblaw.com 

Robert Hellner 

WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN, LLP 

14860 Landmark Boulevard, Suite 120 

Dallas, TX 75254 

Re: Agreements in Le-Vel Brands, LLC v. Natasha Roberson, Cause No. DC-22-06327.

Dear Bobby: 

Per Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11, this letter documents two agreements: 

1. The parties agree to file an agreed motion resetting the temporary injunction hearing 

and extending the TRO. 

2. The parties agree to stay discovery until July 6, 2022. During the stay, the parties 

cannot serve any additional discovery and all notice of depositions are agreed as 

withdrawn and otherwise adjourned until such time as agreed upon by the parties. 

Objections and responses to the June 17 discovery requests will be due July 13, 2022 

(seven days after the stay ends). 

If this correctly reflects our agreements, please sign below. 

Sincerely, 

 Parker Graham 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

Robert Hellner 

Counsel for Defendant 

Case 3:22-cv-01366-S Document 3-1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 156
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 38 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 107
**Exhibit32.2**

## CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SureWest Communications (the “Company”),on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: October 30, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Philip A. Grybas      |   |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Philip A. Grybas,         |
|                   |   | Senior Vice President and |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to SureWest Communications and will be retained by SureWestCommunications and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

Theforegoing certificate is being furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed aspart of the Form 10-Q.

----
#### NEW v. STATE.

No. 21948.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 18, 1942.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1942.

Application for Leave to Pile Second Motion for Rehearing Denied April 1, 1942.

*885O. M.' Lord, of Beaumont, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of robbery with firearms, and by the jury assessed a penalty of five years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record.

The State relied mainly upon circumstantial evidence to establish the identity of the person committing the robbery, and in our opinion the identification, was sufficient to show that appellant was the person who took a pistol and by means thereof took from the complaining witness certain moneys.

The trial court gave the only charge requested by appellant, and there were no objections filed to the court’s charge.

While appellant presented evidence of an alibi, such was evidently not believed by the jury, which was within their province.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

In his motion for rehearing appellant says, as his first grounds, that an opinion was rendered in this case on the very date that it was submitted without appellant having opportunity to present his argument in the case.

The-record discloses that the transcript was filed on November 14, 1941; that it was set for submission on the 11th day of February, 1942, and that the opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court was delivered on February 18th. No brief was filed in behalf of appellant by the date of submission on February 11th and none was tendered for filing on or before February 18th. Appellant’s counsel did not appear on said date to make an oral argument in his behalf. It, therefore, appears that appellant’s complaint that he was defeated in his right to present the case in this court is error.

We have examined the evidence on the question of identification and considered the argument thereon in the motion for rehearing. We are of the opinion that a proper disposition was made of the questions raised and that the motion for rehearing should be denied, which is, accordingly, done.
# C_2015222EN.01000301.xml

| 7.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 July 2015

(2015/C 222/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1008 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4610 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70800 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3699 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0422 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9095 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,135 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 316,13 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2005 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4863 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9622 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4688 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3914 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5338 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6440 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4876 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 241,95 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,6731 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8337 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5750 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 700,08 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2018 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 49,651 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,1340 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,257 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4659 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4537 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,8398 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1008

JPY

Japanese yen

135,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4610

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70800

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3699

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0422

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9095

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,135

HUF

Hungarian forint

316,13

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2005

RON

Romanian leu

4,4863

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9622

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4688

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3914

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5338

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6440

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4876

KRW

South Korean won

1 241,95

ZAR

South African rand

13,6731

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8337

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5750

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 700,08

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2018

PHP

Philippine peso

49,651

RUB

Russian rouble

62,1340

THB

Thai baht

37,257

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4659

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4537

INR

Indian rupee

69,8398

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---