alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60505

Summary Calendar 

JOSE ISABEL HERRERA-LAZO, 

Petitioner 

v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A093 286 415

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Isabel Herrera-Lazo, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a 

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an

immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen seeking to set aside a 1986 order 

deporting him in abstentia. We decline to disturb the BIA’s ruling.

“[M]otions to reopen deportation proceedings are disfavored, and the 

moving party bears a heavy burden.” Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60505 Document: 00514114345 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2017
No. 16-60505

2 

547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our 

authority in this case is circumscribed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D). 

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we conclude that the BIA’s decision must 

stand because it “is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without 

foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather 

than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Singh v. Gonzales, 436 

F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Even liberally construed, Herrera-Lazo’s pro se brief posits at best 

conclusory assertions and points to no record evidence showing that he did not 

receive notice of his deportation merits hearing or that he is otherwise entitled 

to reopening. See Matter of Haim, 19 I. & N. Dec. 641, 642 (BIA 1988). Given 

that Herrera-Lazo’s truncated plea for BIA relief rested on conclusory 

assertions rather than evidence, the BIA’s denial of relief cannot be said to be 

arbitrary, capricious, or irrational. See Singh, 436 F.3d at 487. 

 PETITION DENIED. 

 Case: 16-60505 Document: 00514114345 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2017
**EXHIBIT 23.01****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-127441, 333-108604, 333-64418, 333-64092, 333-05769 and 33-81894) pertaining to the 2001 StockOption Plan, the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1995 Stock Option Plan of GenelabsTechnologies, Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-108608) and the relatedProspectuses of our report dated February 28, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Genelabs Technologies, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPPalo Alto, California
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     Exhibit 23

                             ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company:

        We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 33-72958) on Form S-3 of Panhandle Eastern Pipe line Company of our report
dated January 23, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Panhandle
Eastern Pipe Line Company and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994,
and the related consolidated statements of income, common stockholder's equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 1995, which report appears in the December 31, 1995 annual report on 
Form 10-K of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company.


                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Houston, Texas
March 28, 1996
Exhibit
10.6


 


AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS IS AN AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of October 13, 2004,
by and between B&G FOODS, INC. (hereinafter “Corporation”), and David Burke
(hereinafter “Burke”), amending the Employment Agreement by and between the
Corporation and Burke (the “Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS, the
Corporation and Burke previously entered into the Agreement, to be effective as
of the date of the close of the Offering (as defined below), if the Offering
closed prior to June 30, 2004; and


 


WHEREAS, the Offering did not close prior to June 30 2004 and
will instead close on October 14, 2004; and


 


WHEREAS, Burke and
the Corporation desire to amend Section 1 of the Agreement to provide that the
Agreement shall be effective as of October 14, 2004.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the material advantages accruing to the two parties and the
mutual covenants contained herein and in the Agreement, the Corporation and
Burke agree with each other as follows:


 


1.             Section 1 of the
Agreement as it currently reads is no longer effective and is void ab initio.


 


2.             Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby replaced with the following provision:


 


“1.           EFFECTIVE DATE. 
For purposes of this Agreement, the ‘Effective Date’ shall mean October
14, 2004, the date of the closing of the Corporation’s initial public offering
of the ‘Enhanced Income Securities’ as described in the final prospectus to be
filed with the Securities Exchange Commission by the Corporation (the
‘Offering’).”


 






















 


3.             This Amendment may be
executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and
all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


 


IN  WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Corporation and Burke have executed this Amendment as of the day
and year first above written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  B&G FOODS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Robert C. Cantwell

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Robert C. Cantwell

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Executive Vice President of Finance

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ David Burke

  
	
   

  	
  David Burke

  



 


2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                          11,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                       363
<INVENTORY>                                    236,784
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               297,286
<PP&E>                                         254,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 457,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,810
<BONDS>                                         57,763
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       110,068
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   457,973
<SALES>                                      1,073,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,073,399
<CGS>                                          697,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  697,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   531
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,951
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,951
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

DUANE ROLLINS, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 532, 2014 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware, 

§ in and for New Castle County 

§ Cr. No. 121201904 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: October 28, 2014

 Decided: October 28, 2014 

ORDER

This 28th day of October 2014, it appears to the Court that on September 22, 

2014, the appellant, Duane Rollins, filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court 

order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, his motion to dismiss 

counsel, and his counsel’s motion to withdraw. The appellant has not yet been 

sentenced. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause 

why his appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear 

an interlocutory criminal appeal. The appellant has not responded to the notice to 

show cause within the required ten-day period and therefore dismissal of the 

appeal is deemed to be unopposed. Dismissal of this appeal renders the appellant’s 

requests for appointment of counsel and an extension to file his opening brief 

moot. 
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that this appeal is DISMISSED and the appellant’s requests for appointment of 

counsel and extension to file his opening brief are moot. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Exploration Drilling International Inc. - Exhibit 10.72






Addendum to the loan agreement dated 19/09/2007 

Extension 

LOAN AGREEMENT 

between 

EDI Exploration Drilling International Holding GmbH

Represented by the Managing Director [“Geschäftsführer”] 
Günter Thiemann

Goethestrasse 61 
45721 Haltern am See 

- in the following referred to as Lender -

and 

EDI Exploration Drilling International GmbH 
represented by
the Managing Director [“Geschäftsführer”] 
Christian Runge 
Goethestrasse
59 
45721 Haltern am See 

- in the following referred to as Borrower -

The loan agreement, to which this addendum applies, is changed,
effective immediately, in Section 2 paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows: 

Section 2               
  Interest, term and repayment of loan 

	 	2. 	
      The term shall be extended by approx. 6 months and ends
      on March 31, 2009.

	 	3. 	
      The loan shall be repaid on March 31, 2009 into the
      Lender’s account.



All other provisions remain unchanged and valid. 

Haltern, on September 15, 2008 

	[Signature] 	 	  
	  	 	  
	EDI Holding GmbH 	 	EDI GmbH 
	Günter Thiemann 	 	Christian Runge 
	- Lender - 	 	- Borrower - 
	  	 	  
	  	 	  
	[File name]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         696,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  735,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,913
<INVENTORY>                                  1,110,047
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,792,998
<PP&E>                                      17,363,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                 222,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,187,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,469,850
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,985
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,959,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,187,098
<SALES>                                      3,216,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,216,772
<CGS>                                        2,362,607
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,362,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               439,613
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             217,873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,534,463)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,536,795)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,536,795)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)
        

</TABLE>
1491O-13-P)

14 CFR Part 39

DEPARTMENT OF TR~NSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

OZ?-b

IDocket No. FAA-2010-*****j Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-203-ADI

R1N 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Short Brothers PLC Model SD3 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

~

f'/Z6/ID

NGS,·.,OO,-

L6-B-AtiGACTION: Notice of proposed ruJemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the product

IlOU" [loI<;s",mCH.

listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from

product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation

authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation

"

-v(" "

(' .C..v.--

* * * * * * *

Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems safety

analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s) associated with an

'unsafe condition' ***. These are identified in Failure Conditions for

which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist ir specific

tasks and/or practices are not performed in accordance with the

manufacturers' requirements.

Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight

'"* * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88

(SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System

***

* * * * * * *

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe conditio ATE

described in the MeAl.
#### TURNER v. STATE.

No. 14695.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 6, 1932.

James A. Harrison, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

Armed with a warrant of arrest for another party, officers went to appellant’s house searching for said party, and were admitted, apparently having only in view an effort to execute said warrant. While in appellant’s house said officers testified that they observed a gallon of whisky sitting on the floor. Having before them this evidence, or apparent evidence, of a violation of the law, the officers made further search and found in the house about fifty gallons of whisky. There seems no question but that the premises were those of appellant. The only defensive testimony was that of a negro woman, who said, when on the witness stand, that she was appellant’s wife. She also testified that the place in question was the home of herself and appellant, but that another negro man, .who was a single man, lived thére also.

There is but one bill of exception which brings forward complaint of the reception of the testimony as to the finding of the liquor; the ground of objection being that the officers had no search warrant, and that the search was without authority of law. We do not deem it necessary to cite authorities upon the *206well-settled proposition that officers entering lawfully upon premises in an effort to execute a valid warrant of arrest, and who there find evidences of a violation of the law, have the right to search such premises.

The judgment will be affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00181-CV

Robert CORLEY,

Appellant

v.

Timothy CORLEY, Jason Corley and Century Oaks Land LLC,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI02547

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 30, 2021

PETITION FOR PERMISSIVE APPEAL DENIED; DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

JURISDICTION

Appellant, Robert Corley, has filed a petition for permissive appeal, seeking to challenge 

an interlocutory order denying his partial motion for summary judgment and granting a motion of

summary judgment in favor of appellees, Timothy Corley, Jason Corley, and Century Oaks Land 

LLC.

To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that would not otherwise 

be appealable, the requesting party must establish that (1) the order to be appealed involves a 

“controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”
04-21-00181-CV

- 2 -

and (2) an immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of 

the litigation.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014(d); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3.

Having fully considered appellant’s petition, we deny the petition for permissive appeal. 

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e)(4); see also Sabre 

Travel Int’l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 732 (Tex. 2019) (“Texas courts of 

appeals have discretion to accept or deny permissive interlocutory appeals . . . .”).1

 Accordingly, 

we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Durairaj v. Durairaj, No. 04-19-00271-CV, 

2019 WL 3937275, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 21, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per 

curiam) (denying a petition for permissive appeal and dismissing the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction).

PER CURIAM

1 We recognize that the denial of a petition for permissive appeal does not prevent the Texas Supreme Court from 

reaching the merits of the underlying interlocutory order. See Sabre Travel Int’l, 567 S.W.3d at 733 (“If the trial court 

concludes that the threshold requirements are satisfied and certifies the interlocutory order according to section 

51.014(d), it ‘permits an appeal’ from the order, and [the Texas Supreme] Court’s jurisdiction is then proper under 

section 22.225(d) regardless of how the court of appeals exercises its discretion over the permissive appeal.”).
IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

___________________________________________________

NO.: 03-15-00277-CR

ROBIE LEE LAWHON

v.

STATE OF TEXAS

___________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court of

Milam County, Texas (No. 24,712)

___________________________________________________

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF

FOR APPELLANT ROBIE LEE LAWHON

Tyler Pennington

PENNINGTON LAW PLLC

106 S. Harris St., Suite 125

Round Rock, Texas 78664

Tel: (512) 255-2733

Fax: (866) 736-3690

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

ROBIE LEE LAWHON

ACCEPTED

03-15-00277-CR

5551059

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

6/4/2015 3:35:09 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/4/2015 3:35:09 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
NO.: 03-15-00277-CR 1

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant Robie Lee Lawhon, through his attorney of record, Tyler Pennington of 

Pennington Law PLLC respectfully requests an extension to file his appellant brief. 

Undersigned counsel has various trial settings from the date of filing this motion through 

the end of June 2015. Due to undersigned counsel’s trial schedule he is unable to submit 

the brief by the current deadline of June 22, 2015. Appellant requests a 30-day extension 

making the brief due on July 22, 2015. 

Dated: June 4, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Tyler Pennington

Tyler Pennington

PENNINGTON LAW PLLC

106 S. Harris St., Suite 125

Round Rock, Texas 78664

Tel: (512) 255-2733

Fax: (866) 736-3690

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

ROBIE LEE LAWHON
NO.: 03-15-00277-CR 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true copy of the above and foregoing instrument, together 

with this proof of service has been sent to the District Attorney’s Office of Milam 

County, Texas on June 4, 2015 via as follows: 

Bill Torrey 

Milam County District Attorney

204 N. Central 

Cameron, Texas 76520

PH: 254-697-7013

FAX: 254-697-7016

By facsimile

/s/Tyler Pennington

Tyler Pennington
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Echevarria, Appellant.

Judgement unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated in decision at Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
**Exhibit 24.01**

**AMBAC FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

**Power of Attorney**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director of Ambac Financial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby constitutes and appoints eachof **Sean T. Leonard**and**Anne Gill Kelly,** as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the **Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2008**, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange, and any and all amendments thereto, and any and all instruments and documents filed as a part of or in connectionwith the said **Form 10-K** or amendments thereto, and does hereby grant unto each said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about thepremises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each said attorney-in-fact and agent shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has subscribed these presents as of this 25th day of February 2009. 

/s/    Michael A. Callen                

Michael A. Callen
. ... -..,:*.- 

### OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

# GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN ,. ; !,, .::‘ *pr. 2. ki. 

## Lirkr - Peg0 4