alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30967 Summary Calendar

EMANUEL JULIEN, Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No.99-CV-41-K

-------------------- August 23, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Emanuel Julien, Louisiana inmate # 110718, appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Julien argues that he was constructively denied the
effective assistance of appellate counse l because his lawyer did not argue that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of
an extraneous offense.No.99-30967 -2-
The record does not show that Julian was in effect denied any meaningful assistance at all. C hildress v. Johnson , 103 F.3d 1221,
1229 (5th Cir. 19 97). Julien’s appellate counsel raised two appellate issues, one of which was initially successful inasmuch as
the appellate court remanded the case for resentencing. S ee Sharp

v. Puckett , 930 F.2d 450, 451-52 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Julien has not demonstrated that the error complained of resulted in prejudice under Strickl and v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689-94
(1984). J ackson v. Johnson , 150 F.3d 520, 5 25 (5th Cir. 1998); Bagley v. Collins , 1 F.3d 378, 380 (5th Cir. 1993). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0209

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MARLON DAUNTE THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until June 3, 2020, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

April 27 2020

04/27/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0209
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATION FOR THE PERIOD END 12/31/96 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001003282
<NAME> ROCKY MOUNTAIN INTERNET

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         348,978
<SECURITIES>                                 1,356,629
<RECEIVABLES>                                  633,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                   115,000
<INVENTORY>                                     91,047
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,459,234
<PP&E>                                       3,258,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 403,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,540,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,088,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              250
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,541
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,312,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,540,167
<SALES>                                        519,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,281,579
<CGS>                                          462,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,103,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,480,483
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,302,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,302,571)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,302,571)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.63)


</TABLE>
Case: 3:17-mj-00464-MJN Doc #: 4 Filed: 10/04/17 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 20
Case: 3:17-mj-00464-MJN Doc #: 4 Filed: 10/04/17 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 21
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6604

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT LEROY NANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-222, CA-97-385-3) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Leroy Nance, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Michelle Lecocq, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Leroy Nance appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have reviewed therecord and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nance , Nos. CR-88-222; CA-97-385-3 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 26, 1998). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
- 2 -The payment of Principal and any interest accrued thereon shall be made by bank wire pursuant towire transfer instructions provided by Talisman, unless Ivanhoe is otherwise notified by Talisman.Ivanhoe hereby waives grace, demand, presentment for payment, notice of dishonour or default,protest and diligence in collecting.Each of the provisions contained in this Promissory Note is distinct and severable and adeclaration of invalidity or unenforceability of any such provision by a court of competentjurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision hereof.IN WITNESS WHEREOF Ivanhoe makes and delivers this Promissory Note as of the date first abovewritten.**IVANHOE ENERGY INC.**Per: /s/ *“Ian S. Barnett”* Authorized Signatory
TradeOn Inc.: Exhibit 10.19 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com











Exhibit 10.19 


Summary of Working Capital Loan Contract 


Summary of Working Capital Loan Contract Entered into by and between Changzhou Wujin Best Cable Co., Ltd. ("the Company") and Changzhou Wunjin Branch, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ("the
Creditor") dated November 20, 2009 


Main contents

	
Contract number: Year 2009, Wujin Zi Di 1772 Hao;

	
Loan principal: RMB 5 million;

	
Loan term: from November 20, 2009 to May 19, 2010;

	
Floating interest rate: the benchmark interest rate published by the People’s Bank of China, rate adjustment in a month cycle;

	
Full repayment of the principle shall be made on May 19, 2010 at one time;

	
Interest accrued per day and settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20th day of each month;

	
Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 50% above the loan rate under this contract;

	
Penalty interest rate for use of loan not for the provided purpose: 100% above the loan rate under this contract;

	
Purpose of the loan is to purchase materials;

	
Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;

	
Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest incurred due to
delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal, interest and other fees; compensation for the Creditor’s
expenses incurred due to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSHUA MELVIN NEGRON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2446 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 28, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge. Robert P. Harris of Robert Harris Law Firm, Fort Myers, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Joshua Melvin Negron challenges the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence of twenty-four months in prison for the offense of fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer with lights and sirens activated. We affirm without discussion- 2 -

the trial court's decision to revoke probation and remand only for entry of a second corrected revocation order.

The trial court entered a revocation order and a corrected revocation order. Negron argues, and the State acknowledges, that the corrected revocation order contains errors that require further correction. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter a second corrected revocation order that omits the condition five violations that were never alleged or mentioned at the evidentiary hearing, includes the condition ten violation that the trial court found, and reflects that the violations were found after an evidentiary hearing. See Jones v. State, 221 So. 3d 736, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (remanding for entry of a revocation order conforming to the oral pronouncement of the condition violated); Hamilton v. State, 128 So. 3d 177, 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding to correct revocation order that incorrectly stated that the probationer admitted to the violation when the trial court had conducted a revocation hearing).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
LUCAS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 11


                               Washington Bancorp
                    Computation of Earnings per Common Share

                                                           Twelve Months Ended
                                                               June 30, 2001
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Basic EPS   Diluted EPS
                                                         -----------------------

Computation of weighted average number of
 common  shares outstanding:

Common shares outstanding at the beginning of the
 period ............................................      651,133       651,133
Unreleased common shares held by the Employee
 Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) at the beginning
 to the period .....................................      (33,283)      (33,283)
Weighted average common shares released by the
 ESOP during the period ............................        2,532         2,532
Weighted average common shares outstanding -
 Stock Option Plan .................................         --          10,373
Weighted average common shares purchased
 for treasury ......................................     (125,029)     (125,029)
                                                       ----------    ----------
Weighted average number of common shares ...........      495,353       505,726
                                                       ----------    ----------
Net income .........................................    1,093,394     1,093,394
                                                       ----------    ----------
Net income per common share ........................         2.21          2.16
                                                       ==========    ==========
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEPHEN RAYMOND KRUSPE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2150

[ July 3, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Caroline C. Shepherd , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502017CF003026A

.

Louis G. Carres, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

C IKLIN

, L EVINE and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit


EXHIBIT 10.3




ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT




For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., a California corporation (“Assignor”), hereby assigns to STAR LAKESIDE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), all of Assignor’s rights and obligations under and in regard to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions dated June 29, 2015, (as may have been amended or may hereafter be amended, the “Purchase Agreement”), between AP WP Lake REIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Seller”) and Assignor for the purchase and sale of that certain real property located in Coppell, Texas, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”).


Assignee hereby agrees to and shall assume, perform and be fully responsible for the performance of all of the obligations of Assignor under the Purchase Agreement.


All of the provisions, covenants and agreements contained in the Assignment shall extend to and be binding upon the respective legal representatives, successors and assigns of Assignor and Assignee.  This Assignment represents the entire agreement between Assignor and Assignee with respect to the subject matter of the Assignment, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements regarding such matters are hereby rendered null and void and of no force and effect. 


(SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE)



	
			
	Assignment of PSA
	1
	 



    




WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF, as of this 7th day of October, 2015.




ASSIGNOR:


STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., 
a California corporation


	
			
	By:
	 
	/s/ Ana Marie del Rio

	 
	 
	Ana Marie del Rio, Vice President



                    
ASSIGNEE:


STAR LAKESIDE, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company


By:     Steadfast Apartment Advisor, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability         
company, its Manager
                                                
	
			
	By:
	 
	/s/ Kevin J. Keating

	 
	 
	Kevin J. Keating, Treasurer






          


                            

















	
			
	Assignment of PSA
	2
	 



    




Exhibit A


DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND




	
			
	Assignment of PSA
	3
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 454 

To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for the inclusion of 

new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with 

the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. WAMP (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for 

the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, 

and campgrounds associated with the Trail of Tears 

National Historic Trail, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Trail of Tears Docu5 mentation Act’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 454 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO TRAIL OF TEARS NATIONAL HIS2 TORIC TRAIL. 

3 Section 5(a)(16) of the National Trails System Act 

4 (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(16)) is amended as follows: 

5 (1) By amending subparagraph (C) to read as 

6 follows: 

7 ‘‘(C) In addition to the areas otherwise 

8 designated under this paragraph, the following 

9 routes and land components by which the Cher10 okee Nation was removed to Oklahoma are 

11 components of the Trail of Tears National His12 toric Trail, as generally described in the envi13 ronmentally preferred alternative of the Novem14 ber 2007 Feasibility Study Amendment and 

15 Environmental Assessment for Trail of Tears 

16 National Historic Trail: 

17 ‘‘(i) The Benge and Bell routes. 

18 ‘‘(ii) The land components of the des19 ignated water routes in Alabama, Arkan20 sas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. 

21 ‘‘(iii) The routes from the collection 

22 forts in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, 

23 and Tennessee to the emigration depots. 

24 ‘‘(iv) The related campgrounds located 

25 along the routes and land components de26 scribed in clauses (i) through (iii).’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 454 IH

1 (2) In subparagraph (D)— 

2 (A) by striking the first sentence; and 

3 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘No lands or interests in lands outside the exte5 rior boundaries of any federally administered 

6 area may be acquired by the Federal Govern7 ment for the Trail of Tears National Historic 

8 Trail except with the consent of the owner 

9 thereof.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL ALFONSO PAZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72345 

Agency No. A073-914-628 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Alfonso Paz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 

* 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

JUN 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-72345 

512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to 

the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. 

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th 

Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding that Paz did not establish membership in a 

cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he 

applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a 

common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially 

distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. 

Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Paz’s withholding of removal claim fails.

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Paz’s contentions regarding 

nexus, the severity of his past harm, or the likelihood of future harm in El 

Salvador. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (courts and agencies are not required to 

decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

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

failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent 

or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 
3 17-72345 

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION
DESHAWN GIVENS,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-163
v. CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

MAJOR TUNNER, ez. al,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
On August 7, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 7) recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to timely
effect service of process under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections have been filed to the Report
and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF

No. 7). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court DISMISSES this

action,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G-¥9- Loy KZ
DATE EDMUND/A. SARGUS, JR.

CHIEF U: 'D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 164
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 2 of 20 PAGEID #: 165
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 3 of 20 PAGEID #: 166
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 4 of 20 PAGEID #: 167
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 5 of 20 PAGEID #: 168
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 6 of 20 PAGEID #: 169
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 7 of 20 PAGEID #: 170
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 8 of 20 PAGEID #: 171
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 9 of 20 PAGEID #: 172
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 10 of 20 PAGEID #: 173
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 11 of 20 PAGEID #: 174
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 12 of 20 PAGEID #: 175
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 13 of 20 PAGEID #: 176
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 14 of 20 PAGEID #: 177
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 15 of 20 PAGEID #: 178
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 16 of 20 PAGEID #: 179
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 17 of 20 PAGEID #: 180
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 18 of 20 PAGEID #: 181
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 19 of 20 PAGEID #: 182
Case: 2:18-cv-00045-JLG-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/17/18 Page: 20 of 20 PAGEID #: 183