alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Filed 2/18/22 P. v. Sarwar CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROHAIL SARWAR,

Defendant and Appellant. C092711

(Super. Ct. No. CRF 2018

-

4967)

Appointed counsel for defendant Rohail Sarwar has asked this court to conduct an

independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on

appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error in

defendant’s favor, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On August 21

, 2018, defendant killed Junying Lu by stabbing her about 20 times

in the head, abdomen, and hands. ( People v. Sarwar (Oct. 26, 2021, C090687 ) [nonpub.2

opn.].) 1 A jury found defendant guilty of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) 2 with the

enhancements that defendant intentionally killed Lu by means of lying in wait (§ 190.2,

subd. (a)(15)), that the murder was committed during the commission or attempted

commission of a burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), and that defendant persona lly used a

deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1) )

. The jury also found defendant guilty of assault

against another victim with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation

(§ 220, subd. (a) ). Defendant was sentenced to life without the possib ility of parole plus

seven years. We affirmed defendant’s conviction on appeal.

On August 6, 2020, while defendant’s direct appeal was pending, the trial court

held a victim restitution hearing. After considering the prosecutor’s brief, the

prosecutor’s supporting evidence, and argument by both sides, t he trial court ordered

defendant pay a total restitution amount of $256,273.23 to Lu ’s family for loss of

financial support for a 10

- year period, funeral costs, and other related expenses.

Defendant timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of

the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any

arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal. 3d 436.) Defendant was

advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date

the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed

a supplemental brief. Our review of the record pursua nt to Wende has disclosed no

arguable errors in defendant’s favor.

1 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of this prior decision. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

HOCH

, J.

We concur:

/s/ BLEASE, Acting P. J.

/s/

ROBIE , J.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3239 Referred in House (RFH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3239

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2000

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide special 
 immigrant status for certain United States international broadcasting 
                               employees.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CERTAIN UNITED STATES 
              INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING EMPLOYEES.

    (a) Special Immigrant Category.--Section 101(a)(27) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (K);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (L); 
        and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(M) subject to the numerical limitations of section 
        203(b)(4), an immigrant who seeks to enter the United States to 
        work as a broadcaster in the United States for the 
        International Broadcasting Bureau of the Broadcasting Board of 
        Governors, or for a grantee of the Broadcasting Board of 
        Governors, and the immigrant's accompanying spouse and 
        children.''.
    (b) Numerical Limitations.--
            (1) In general.--Section 203(b)(4) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4)) is amended by inserting 
        before the period at the end the following: ``, and not more 
        than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special 
        immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described 
        in section 101(a)(27)(M)''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply to visas made available in any fiscal year 
        beginning on or after October 1, 2000.

            Passed the Senate October 25 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
To:
    
    Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Collateral Trustee
 Re:
    
    Second Priority Collateral Trust Agreement, dated as of November 30,
2006, (as the same may be amended, supplemented or otherwise modified,
the SCTA) among Satélites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V., a corporation
(sociedad anónima de capital variable)organized under the laws of the
United Mexican States (Satmex), Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as Collateral Trustee thereunder (in such capacity,
together with any successor appointed hereunder, the Collateral
Trustee) and, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee
under the Second Priority Indenture described therein (in such
capacity, together with any successor appointed thereunder, the
Indenture Trustee).
    ALTERNATV CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ LUIS STEINName:
    Luis SteinTitle:
    CFOBy:
    /s/ OCTAVIO LECONAName:
    Octavio LeconaTitle:
    Vice President for Legal Affairs and Secretary
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 4, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00357

- CV

JOHN GALIOTO , Appellant

V.

HIGHER EDUCATION SER VICING CORPORATION AND NEW MEXICO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTAN CE FOUNDATION , Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 05947

- C



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald Opinion by Justice O’Neill

This is an appeal from an order denying a special appearance. By motion filed May 27,

2014, appellant requests we dismiss the appeal, explaining appellees filed a notice of non

- suit in

the trial court dismissing him as a defendant. We grant the motion an d dismiss the appeal. T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 42.1( a ).

140357F.P05 /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOHN GALIOTO, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00357

- CV V.

HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICING
CORPORATION AND NEW MEXICO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, Appellees On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 05947

- C. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill. Justices Mosele y and FitzGerald participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 4th day of June, 2014.

/Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O’NEILL
JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 352 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 352

To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to require that 
   Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county and local 
            governments on environmental impact statements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 1999

Mr. Thomas (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Craig, Mr. Helms, Mr. Crapo, 
Mr. Grams, and Mr. Enzi) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to require that 
   Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county and local 
            governments on environmental impact statements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Government 
Participation Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. CONSULTATION WITH STATE AGENCIES AND COUNTY AND LOCAL 
              GOVERNMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS.

    Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is amended in the first sentence after clause 
(v) by striking ``any Federal agency which has'' and by inserting 
``each Federal agency, State agency, county government, and local 
government that has''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Doll & Smith, Appellants, v. A. & S. Sanitary Dairy Company, Appellee.

SALES: Order — Eight to Cancel. An order for goods may be canceled prior to acceptance of the order, and it is quite immaterial that the maker of the order referred, in his cancellation, to the “order” as a contract.

Headnote 1: 35 Oye. pp. 51, 53.

Headnote 1: 10 L. E. A. (3ST. S.) 1138; 10 A. L. K. 685; 23 E. C. L. 1288.

*Appeal from Council Bluffs Municipal Court.*— Daniel II. Sheehan, Judge.

December 14, 1926.

The petition in this ease alleges that defendant gave plaintiff an order for advertising matter; that it was accepted, and delivery made, but price not paid. The answer denies that any contract was made, and alleges cancellation of the order. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*Walter S. Stillman*and *J. Leo Connolly,*for appellants.

*Galvin, Byers & Sullivan,*for appellee.

Morling, J.

On June 9, 1924, defendant signed an order to plaintiff to ship by express F. O. B. New York as soon as possible the described advertising material. By the language of the order, defendant agreed to pay the price on stipulated terms. The order was apparently given to an agent, and by him forwarded to plaintiff in New York. On June 14, 1924, the plaintiff received the order, and referred it to the factory to be filled. Plaintiff paid the agent’s commission and' incurred other expense, but gave no notice to defendant of acceptance. On June 16,1924, defendant wired cancellation, and on June 19, 1924, wrote a letter of cancellation. On June 20, 1924, plaintiff wrote a letter acknowledging receipt of the telegram and objecting to the cancellation. Some point is made over the use of *787the word “contract” in the telegram, which says, “Cancel our contract,” and in the letter of June 19th, which asks, cancellation of “our order,” states that defendant does not wish to contract, and asks plaintiff “to cancel our contract with you.” There was, however, on the facts related, no contract consummated, because there was no communication of acceptance, nor' were the goods delivered before defendant by the telegram had withdrawn the offer. *McCormick Harv. Mach. Co. v. Richardson,*89 Iowa 525; *Durkee v. Schultz,*122 Iowa 410; *Younglove v. Hoherg,*195 Iowa 281. The use of the word “contract” does not vary the legal effect of the transaction. Furthermore, plaintiff alleges delivery, and seeks to recover the price of the goods. The goods were not delivered. No case for damages, either on pleading or proof, is made.

The judgment *is*— -Affirmed.

De Graff, C. J., and Evans and Albert, JJ., concur.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40454

Summary Calendar

 

JOSEPH G. STRAWBRIDGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHANNON L. McDOW, Correctional Officer,

Coffield Unit Individually and in official 

capacity; SCOTT L. HOLLEY, Correctional 

Officer, Coffield Unit Individually and in

official capacity; DAVID S. KASSAW, 

Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit 

Individually and in official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-364

- - - - - - - - - -

April 28, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph G. Strawbridge, Texas prisoner no. 529740, appeals

the magistrate judge’s entry of summary judgment in favor of

Defendants Scott L. Holley and David S. Kassaw and the magistrate

judge’s dismissal, as frivolous, of his claims against Defendant

Shannon L. McDow. 
No. 98-40454

-2-

In deciding Strawbridge’s excessive force claim, the

magistrate judge relied upon our decision in Siglar v.

Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997), to find that

Strawbridge’s injuries were de minimis and thus could not form

the basis of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim. The

magistrate judge did not have the benefit of our recent decision

in Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 1999), in which we

elaborated upon the definition of “de minimis” in a factual

context more similar to the instant case than Siglar. The

magistrate judge’s opinion regarding Strawbridge’s excessive

force claim is thus VACATED; the case is REMANDED for

reconsideration in light of Gomez.

The magistrate judge’s resolution of Strawbridge’s claims

that (1) he was subjected to an unfair disciplinary proceeding,

resulting in a lengthier prison term and undesirable prison

housing, and (2) that he was the victim of retaliation is 

AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons cited by the magistrate

judge. See Strawbridge v. McDow, 6:97-CV-364 (E.D. Tex., March

11, 1998). Strawbridge’s request for appointment of counsel is

DENIED AS MOOT.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.31


                             Amendment No. 1 to the
                              Amended and Restated
              Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan and Agreement
                                       for
                                 Ira B. Lampert


       Amendment No. 1, dated as of January 1, 2001 (this "Amendment"), to the
Amended and Restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan and Agreement for
Ira B. Lampert, dated as of April 19, 2000 (the "Plan"), by and between CONCORD
CAMERA CORP., a New Jersey corporation (the "Employer") and IRA B. LAMPERT (the
"Executive").

       The Employer and the Executive agree that the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:

       1. The definition of "Yearly Credit" found in Article II of the Plan is
deleted and replaced with the following:

       "Yearly Credit - the $500,000 to be credited each year to a Yearly
       Account pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article III."

       2. Paragraph 1 of Article III of the Plan is deleted and replaced with
the following:

       "1. During the Term of Employment, the Employer agrees to credit $500,000
       to a Yearly Account on the first working day of each calendar year, and
       such deferred compensation shall be paid to the Executive as hereinafter
       provided."

       3. The foregoing amendments to the Plan are effective as of January 1,
2001.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the Employer
and by the Executive as of the date indicated above.



Witness:                                  CONCORD CAMERA CORP.


/s/ Margaret Lombardo                     By: /s/ Harlan I. Press
---------------------------------             ----------------------------------
                                              Harlan I. Press,
                                              Vice President and Treasurer

Witness:


/s/ Diane Micciche                        /s/ Ira B. Lampert
---------------------------------         ----------------------------------
                                          Ira B. Lampert
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN**  **AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

FAA - 2012 - 0356 Docket Number 2011 - SW - 067 -AD Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Eurocopter Eme rgency Alert Service Bulletin MBB - BK117 - 80 - 166, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DUR ING THE HOURS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3219 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3219

 To amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit the appearance of 
  Social Security account numbers on or through unopened mailings of 
     checks or other drafts issued on public money in the Treasury.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 19 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

 Mr. Daschle (for Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following bill; which 
        was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit the appearance of 
  Social Security account numbers on or through unopened mailings of 
     checks or other drafts issued on public money in the Treasury.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Number 
Confidentiality Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. OPEN DISCLOSURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS ON THE FACE 
              OF GOVERNMENT CHECK MAILINGS PROHIBITED.

    Section 3327 of title 31 of the United States Code (relating to 
general authority to issue checks and other drafts) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall take such actions as are 
necessary to ensure that Social Security account numbers (including 
derivatives of such numbers) are not visible on or through unopened 
mailings of checks or other drafts described in subsection (a) of this 
section.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TRANSITIONAL RULE.

    (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 
respect to all mailings of checks or other drafts issued on or after 
the date which is 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Phase-in of Amendments.--Effective on the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall commence procedures to 
gradually implement the amendments made by this Act in advance of the 
effective date described in subsection (a). Not later than one year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter 
for each of the next two years, the Secretary shall transmit to each 
House of the Congress a report describing the manner and extent to 
which the requirements of the preceding sentence have been carried out.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KULWINDER JIT SINGH PARHAR, AKA

Kulwinder Singh,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72395

Agency No. A027

- 563

- 285

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Kulwinder Jit Singh Parhar , a native and citizen of India, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v . Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir.

* 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 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72395

2016 ). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Singh Parhar does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge the

agency’s denial of his motion as untimely and number barred

. See Lopez

- Vasquez

v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised

and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to cons ider

Singh Parhar’s unexhausted contentions regarding sua sponte reopening

. See

Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally requiring

exhaustion of claims)

.

Singh Parhar’s contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction under Pereira

v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), also fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (198 6 )

(deferring to regulations to establish requirements to provide notice of the

deportation proceedings); 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(b) (19 86 ) (not requiring the time or

place at which proceedings will be held to be included in the order to show cause);

see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of

certain information from notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes

by later hearing notice).

On June 25, 2019 , the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of removal

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.