alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed: June 20, 2000 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6444 (CA-99-103-5) In Re: Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Petitioner.
ORDER The court amends its opinion filed June 6, 2000, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3 -- the district court number is corrected to read “CA-00-103-5.” For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor ClerkUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6444 In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-103-5) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: On March 31, 2000 Vincent E. Lineberger filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his motions for preliminary injunction and bond pending review which he filed in February and March 2000. Because it has been less than six months since Lineberger filed his action in the district court, wefind no undue delay. Thus, mandamus relief is not warranted. Although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny thepetition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2956 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the earned income 

tax credit to citizens and lawful permanent residents and to require 

a valid social security number to claim the refundable portion of the 

child tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2015 

Mr. GROTHMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the 

earned income tax credit to citizens and lawful permanent residents and to require a valid social security number to claim the refundable portion of the child tax 

credit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing Illegal Im5 migrants From Abusing Tax Welfare Act of 2015’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2956 IH

1 SEC. 2. EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT LIMITED TO CITI2 ZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 32(c)(1)(D) of the Inter4 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(G) LIMITED TO CITIZENS AND LAWFUL

6 PERMANENT RESIDENTS.—The term ‘eligible 

7 individual’ shall not include any individual who 

8 is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of 

9 the United States.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 SEC. 3. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED TO CLAIM 

14 THE REFUNDABLE PORTION OF THE CHILD 

15 TAX CREDIT. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 24(d) of the Internal Rev17 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

18 following new paragraph: 

19 ‘‘(5) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT WITH RE20 SPECT TO TAXPAYER.— 

21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) shall 

22 not apply to any taxpayer for any taxable year 

23 unless the return of tax for such taxable year 

24 includes the taxpayer’s social security number 

25 and the social security number of any qualifying 

26 child with respect to whom a credit is allowed 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2956 IH

1 under this section (determined without regard 

2 to this subsection). 

3 ‘‘(B) JOINT RETURNS.—In the case of a 

4 joint return, the requirement of subparagraph 

5 (A) shall be treated as met with respect to the 

6 taxpayer if the social security number of either 

7 spouse is included on such return. 

8 ‘‘(C) OMISSION TREATED AS MATHE9 MATICAL OR CLERICAL ERROR.—Any failure to 

10 meet the requirement of subparagraph (A) shall 

11 be treated as a mathematical or clerical error 

12 and assessed according to section 6213(b)(1).’’. 

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 24(e) of 

14 such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘WITH RESPECT TO

15 QUALIFYING CHILDREN’’ after ‘‘IDENTIFICATION RE16 QUIREMENT’’ in the heading thereof. 

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50276

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE MADRID-MARQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-2229

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Enrique MadridMarquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126

S. Ct. 1398 (2006), which held that a Texas conviction for

burglary of a habitation was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling

and therefore was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, and

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for
No. 06-50276

-2-

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2022431EN.01000101.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10763 – NORDEA / TOPDANMARK LIV HOLDING)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 431/01)

On 18 October 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10763. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10763. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2023202EN.01005101.xml

| 9.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/51

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10920 – AMAZON / IROBOT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 202/12)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Amazon.com, Inc. (‘Amazon’, United States) |
| --- | --- |

—

Amazon.com, Inc. (‘Amazon’, United States)

| — | iRobot Corporation (‘iRobot’, United States) |
| --- | --- |

—

iRobot Corporation (‘iRobot’, United States)

Amazon will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of iRobot.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Amazon operates a range of businesses including retail, entertainment, consumer electronics and technology services. It also provides online intermediation services to third party sellers through its online Amazon marketplaces which allow third party sellers to advertise and sell products to customers. |
| --- | --- |

—

Amazon operates a range of businesses including retail, entertainment, consumer electronics and technology services. It also provides online intermediation services to third party sellers through its online Amazon marketplaces which allow third party sellers to advertise and sell products to customers.

| — | iRobot is a global manufacturer of floor care products, primarily active in the design and supply of robot vacuum cleaners. |
| --- | --- |

—

iRobot is a global manufacturer of floor care products, primarily active in the design and supply of robot vacuum cleaners.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10920 – AMAZON / IROBOT

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

|     99.1   | Press Release, dated April 28, 2011, issued by First Merchants Corporation |
|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
<PAGE>

MAXCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 23.1 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM--REHMANN
ROBSON

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Forms
S-8 No. 33-48351 and S-8 No. 333-67539) pertaining to the Maxco, Inc. Incentive
Stock Option Plan and the Maxco, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, and in the related
prospectus of our report dated July 6, 2004 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Maxco, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended March 31, 2004.

                                                              /S/ REHMANN ROBSON

Troy, Michigan
July 13, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTIAGO HERNANDEZ

- URCINO,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 70616

Agency No. A088

- 915

- 064

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 20, 2021 * *

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Santiago Hernandez

- Urcino , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have

* 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

JAN 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 70616

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.

2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez

Urcino failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected

ground. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if

membership in a particular social group is es tablished, an applicant must still show

that “ persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group ” ) ;

Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”) . Thus, Hernandez

- Urcino’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Hernandez

- Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

December 11, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00432

- CR

Donald BRASSFIELD

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From th e 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 16

- 1733

- CR

- A Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

After we granted court reporter Patricia M. Wagner’s second motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record, we set the record due on Dece mber 6 , 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. R. 35.3(c). On t he twice

- extended due date, the court reporter filed a second request for an
extension of time to file the record until January 7, 2020

. The reporter’s request is GRANTED. The reporter’s record must be filed with this court by January 7, 2020

. See id. (li miting any extension in an ordinary appeal to thirty days).

If the court reporter is unable to file the completed record by January 7, 2020 , any further request for additional time to file the record must be accompanied by a signed, written status
report

. The report must describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and remarks for each day. The page counts must include the total number of pages, the number of pages edited, proofread, and formatted into the required electronic form (including bookmarks).

The report may describe any unusual aspects of the record. The report must describe any problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond the requested date.

The preferred form f or the status report, with an accompanying example, is attached._____________ ____________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of December, 2019

.

_____ ______________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2





CEO Certification


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350)





I, Neil Chan, certify that pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350), the 10-Q report for IGEN Networks for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act  and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the IGEN Networks.





August 20, 2012








/s/ Neil Chan


Neil Chan


Director, CEO
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. 178.15 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, situate IN GRAYSON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et al., Appellants.

No. 76-1116.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 7, 1976.

Decided Nov. 12, 1976.

Lome R. Campbell, Independence, Va. (J. Colin Campbell, Independence, Va., on brief), for appellants.

Robert A. Kerry, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Walter Kiechel, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul R. Thomson, Jr., U. S. Atty., Carr L. Kinder, Asst. U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., Jacques B. Gelin, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and MERHIGE, District Judge.*

*

**Honorable Robert R. Merhige. Sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Upon the appeal of this condemnation proceeding the appellant-landowners take the position that the Government lacked the power to exercise its right of eminent domain over their lands because of its failure to file an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332, prior to the taking. The appellants also contend that the district court improperly limited the evidence with respect to the value of the property, and denied them their constitutional right to have the issue of fair market value tried by a jury.

Upon consideration of the record, brief and oral arguments, we perceive no merit in any of these contentions and, accordingly, affirm the order of the district court.

*AFFIRMED.*
Letter Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
  
 

 
  
 October 22, 2004 
  
 Martin J. McGahan 
 President & Chief Financial Officer 
 HealthTronics Surgical Services 
 1841 West Oak Parkway, Suite A 
 Marietta, GA 30062 
  
 Dear Martin: 
  
 Pursuant to the request of HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. (the “Borrower”) dated October 20th, 2004 requesting a short term amendment to the financial covenants of that certain Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated
as of March 5, 2004 (as amended, modified, restated or supplemented from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”; all of the defined terms of the Credit Agreement are incorporated herein by reference), by and between Borrower and Lenders
(SunTrust Bank and Region’s Bank, collectively, the “Lenders”); the Lenders are in agreement to amend Section 7.10 of the Credit Agreement to reflect and define the financial covenants for Borrower’s third fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2004 to be based upon the Borrower’s second fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 results. This amendment of the September 30, 2004 financial covenants shall be effective up to but not after the earlier of (i) November 15, 2004 or
(ii) the close of the sale of Borrower to Prime Medical Services, Inc (“Prime”). Lenders acknowledge that all transaction costs associated with the purchase of Borrower by Prime will be expensed in the third quarter, which would likely
otherwise result in a default under the original financial covenants as described in Section 7.10 of the Credit Agreement. Should the Prime transaction fail to occur on or before November 15, 2004 and all debt currently owed to Lenders not be repaid
in full by that date, the original loan covenants in Section 7.10 of the Credit Agreement shall be in full force and effect. 
  
 This short term amendment to Section 7.10 of the Credit Agreement is for this period and event only and should not be construed as the Bank’s willingness to waive or
amend any other requirements in the future. All other requirements of the Loan Agreement and any Amendments shall remain in full force. 
  
 Feel free to contact me with any further questions or comments. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/ Thomas G. O. Forsberg

	 Thomas G. O. Forsberg

	 Assistant Vice President


  

					
	Acknowledged and accepted:	 	 
			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Martin McGahan
	 	 11/3/04

	 	 	Martin McGahan, President & Chief Financial Officer HealthTronics Surgical Services
|   | 1. | I      am the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of North      American Energy Resources, Inc. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Attached      to this certification is Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2009,      a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with the      Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which contains      condensed financial statements. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | I      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      periodic report containing the condensed financial statements fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange      Act, and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations      of the issuer for the periodspresented. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| December      21, 2009 | /s/ Ross E. Silvey                  |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                   | Ross      E. Silvey                 |
|                   | Chief      Executive Officer and    |
|                   | Acting      Chief Financial Officer |

----