alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 10, 2016

No. 04-15-00501-CV

Rene CERVANTES,

Appellant

v.

Lisa M. CERVANTES,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CVG001776-D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant’s motion for rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONARDO MARTINEZ

- VALLES
,

Petitioner
,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III
, Attorney General
, Respondent

. No. 1 5

- 71313

Agency No. A070

- 289

- 860

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted December 5, 2017 ** San Francisco, California

Before: OWENS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO, *** District Judge.

P etitioner Leonardo Martinez

- Valles , a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) d ecision affirming

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The pane l unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

an Immigration Judge’s determination that Petitioner withdrew an earlier appeal

pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.4

. We have jurisdict ion pursuan t to 8 U.S.C. § 1252

and deny the petition

. We review questions of law de novo . Hamazaspyan v. Holder , 590 F.3d 744,

747 (9th Cir. 2009). The BIA did not err in deeming Petitioner’s first appeal to the

BIA withdrawn because it is undisputed that Petitioner voluntarily departed the

United States while his appeal of a removal order was pending . Under 8 C.F.R. §

1003.4 , this departure constitutes a withdrawal of his appeal. S ee Aguilera

- Ruiz v.

Ashcroft , 34 8 F.3d 835, 839 (9th Cir. 2003)

. Petitioner’s contention that his due process rights were violated due to

insufficient notice fails because Petitioner admits th at he received two separate

notices warning him that depart ing the United States might lead to withdrawal of

his appeal

. Although the notices Petitioner received were not identical

— the first

warned that departure “may” lead to withdrawal, while the latter warned that

departure “will” lead to withdrawal

— the difference between them is immaterial.

B oth notices conveyed a general advisory of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.4’s consequences and

were not contradictory

. Because Petitioner received adequate notice of the rule, his

due process challenge fails

. Cf. Martinez

- de Bojorquez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 800,

806 (9th Cir. 2004) (applicatio n of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.4 “ without any notice

whatsoever ” can violate due process in some circumstances ). That the BIA did not3

specifically cite the earlier notice in its decision does not change this result

. See

Ramirez

- Villalpando v. Holder , 645 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011) ( “The BIA is

not required to ‘ expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argume nt or
piece of evidence offered by the petitioner

. ’ ” (quoting Wang v. B d. of Immigration

Appeals , 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) ) )

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00323-CV

IN RE JENNIFER VILLARREAL

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV06504

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a), 43.2(f). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties who incurred them.

SIGNED November 23, 2016.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.$
       
<S>                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-1-1997            JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1997           DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1                     1
<CASH>                                       2,597                 6,869
<SECURITIES>                                     0                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7                   230
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,735                 7,246
<PP&E>                                         265                   158
<DEPRECIATION>                                 114                    57
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,029                 7,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          660                   518
<BONDS>                                          0                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0                     0
<PREFERRED>                                      0                     0
<COMMON>                                         5                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,364                 6,827
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,029                 7,357
<SALES>                                         21                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137                   908
<CGS>                                            0                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130                   649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,824                 1,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9                   540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,562                 2,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,562                 2,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0                     0
<CHANGES>                                        0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,562)               (2,524)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (0.98)                (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.98)                (0.80)
                                                          
                                                         

</TABLE>
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors and Shareholders
GraphOn Corporation


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-119402, 333-107336, 333-88255 and 333-40174) of
GraphOn Corporation of our report dated February 23, 2004, relating to the
consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 23, 2004,
relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.
Our report on the consolidated financial statements contains an explanatory
paragraph regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
BDO Seidman, LLP
San Jose, California

April 12, 2005
# C_2015215EN.01000301.xml

| 1.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7647 — Bridgepoint/Nordic Cinema Group Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 215/02)

On 24 June 2015, 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 language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7647. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7647. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2015114EN.01000101.xml

| 9.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7513 — AR Packaging Group/MWV European Tobacco and General Packaging Folding Carton Operations)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 114/01)

On 31 March 2015, 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:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7513. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7513. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION**
  Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. 1350
 (Section
        302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  In
          connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A
          of
          Impart Media Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended June
          30,
          2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
          hereof
          (the "Report"), Joseph F. Martinez, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
          Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
          adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:
                    December 19, 2006
                By:
                /s/Joseph
                    F. MartinezJoseph
                    F. MartinezChief
                    Executive Officer and
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer
 
 This
        certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Orckit Communications Ltd. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Uri
Shalom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)       
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|April  16, 2008 |  | By: /s/ Uri Shalom
Uri Shalom, Chief Financial Officer
|--------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
Order entered February 18, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00098
- CR JOSEPH WALLACE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. F10
- 24982
- R



### O RDER The State’s motion for the Court to accept its contemporaneously tendered response brief and to permit oral argument is GRANTED . The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the State’s brief as of the date received.

/s/ ELI ZABETH LANG

- MIERS PRESIDING JUSTICE
| Name                             |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation    |
|----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                             |   |                             |
| Suite Speed, Inc.                |   | State of Delaware, United States |
|                             |   |                             |
| Canadian Communications, LLC     |   | State of Colorado, United States |
|                             |   |                             |
| Cardinal Broadband, LLC          |   | State of Colorado, United States |
|                             |   |                             |
| Cardinal Connect, LLC            |   | State of Colorado, United States |
|                             |   |                             |
| Arista Communications, LLC       |   | State of Colorado, United States |
|                             |   |                             |
| Cardinal Hospitality, Ltd.       |   | British Columbia, Canada         |
|                             |   |                             |
| SignalShare Infrastructure, Inc. |   | Nevada                           |
|                             |   |                             |
| Signal Point Holdings Corp.      |   | Delaware                         |
• REF- ID""t·A71·0-l1 0-

C 0 l<J Fi DE l<JTi A lr.---

COP!' POia Mr. Friedman 

' • 

zr D,cem.bel" 1944 

S1E;nal Corps Projeot B\allber 4600 

P Branch Proj. Ho. 0-2012 - AN/Gs;-1 {SIGJIP) S;ypchronlzat1qn, -

(C1phol1J') 

... I I"' - ,. -.. ,,- I I 

. General Heture nf t~e ProJecta tJ.. - _,.1 JL. " 11 ! ., L 

To investS.:1nto tho J:l"Oble2 or pulse cynchronizotioD ot Speech Equipment AR/GS~-1 (SIOJIP). 

Purpos,e or Objective to be Attained 1 

To detert'li~e the nrncticab111ty of a Moro eucoeeetul 

meana of sytichron1z1ng tha SIG.TIP eqi1!~nant than the method 

now employed. 

a:z.anoh or Other Agenoz neguest1ng the ProJeota 

o Branch. 

Approximate Cost: 

Jlater1al 

Van lloura 1 • 

1Qla1neer1ng 400 hrs. 

Laboratol"J 25 hra. 

Shop 25 h~a • , 

Total 

Time ,Required tor Comnlet1on 1 

Startlng date 

Completion date 

' Iccel.Development or Contracts 

Local. 

APPROVEDt 

/s/ 

Lao Rosen 

Lt Col, SPSIP 

Z7 December 1944 

I I 

• 50 

15 J&nual"J 1945 

1 Apl'll 194; 

-------1CONFIDENTIAQ1--------

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-02-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e 

'' 

'' 

I 

I 

t 

I
#### In the Matter of the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Paris Shoe Co., Inc., Assignor, to Mario J. Cariello, Assignee.*

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

July 15, 1937.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General [George F. Mullay*of counsel], for the State of New York, for the motion.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel [Edmund B. Hennefdd*of counsel], for the City of New York, opposed.

*

See 165 Misc. 394.

Smith, J.

This is a motion for reargument made by the State of New York. The State seeks to have its claim for franchise tax against the insolvent debtor, Paris Shoe Co., Inc., declared superior to the claim of the city of New York for sales tax. On the original motion the court held both claims to be equal.

The motion for reargument is denied on two grounds: *First,*on the facts as presented on the original motion it was properly determined. *Second,*the additional fact presented on this motion does not call for a different decision. While on a motion for reargument no party may present additional facts, the State has submitted an affidavit and letters in which are set forth the additional fact that the franchise tax for which it had filed its claim had theretofore been liquidated and assessed against the debtor. Even if the court should now take cognizance of this new fact it would, nevertheless, *398be compelled to adhere to its original decision. This court in its original decision pointed out that if the franchise tax had been liquidated and assessed the situation with regard to the priority between the State and the city *“*might be different.” But since that decision was made the Court of Appeals has clarified the situation. In an opinion handed down by that court on May 25, 1937, in *Matter of Lincoln Chair & Novelty Co., Inc. (275 N.*Y. 353), it clearly indicated, in a controversy between the State and the Federal government, that until there has been a seizure of the debtor’s property by levy and execution, the mere 'liquidation and assessment of the State’s franchise tax are of no consequence and do not have the effect either of appropriating the debtor’s property or of making specific the lien granted to the State by the Tax Law for the collection of the franchise tax. If this be so, then, obviously, the additional fact now attempted to be presented by the State for the first time (namely, that the franchise tax had been computed and assessed) is likewise immaterial. It cannot serve to advance the sovereign preference of the State in the collection of the franchise tax over the sovereign preference of the city in the collection of the sales tax. Until one or the other is actually enforced they both stand on an equal footing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNIFRAX
CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999
AND THEIR CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            15,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                821
<INVENTORY>                               9,403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         27,038
<PP&E>                                   76,455
<DEPRECIATION>                          (40,854)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           84,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    17,591
<BONDS>                                  96,000
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                              (37,431)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             84,578
<SALES>                                  85,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         85,089
<CGS>                                    42,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            42,765
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            938
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       11,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           7,766
<INCOME-TAX>                              2,792
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       4,974
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              4,974
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of SyntheMed, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief, that:





(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SyntheMed, Inc.





March 25, 2011
/s/ Richard L. Franklin, M.D.


Name:
Richard L. Franklin, M.D.Title: Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board  (principal

executive, financial and accounting officer)