alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, AKA Jose 

Garcia Rodriguez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent. 

No. 15-73106 

Agency No. A088-241-860 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Rodriguez-Garcia, 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 cancellation of removal, asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

 

* 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

APR 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73106 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s determination of continuous physical presence, IbarraFlores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for 

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that RodriguezGarcia was outside of the United States for a period of more than 90 days during 

the statutory period and thus failed to establish the requisite continuous physical 

presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (a departure in excess of 90 days 

breaks continuous physical presence). Even assuming equitable estoppel could 

apply, he has not shown affirmative misconduct by United States immigration 

officials. See Salgado-Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1165 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(“The government in immigration cases may be subject to equitable estoppel if it 

has engaged in affirmative misconduct.”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that RodriguezGarcia failed to establish that he could not reasonably relocate within Mexico. See

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)-(3).

Rodriguez-Garcia has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT 

relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not 

raised in an opening brief are waived).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rodriguez-Garcia’s contentions 
3 15-73106 

regarding membership in a particular social group.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00070-CR 

EDWARD SAENZ, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2017-489,644, Honorable Drue Farmer, Presiding 

 

July 27, 2018 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Pending before the Court is the motion of appellant Edward Saenz to dismiss his 

appeal. Appellant and his attorney have signed the motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). No 

decision of the Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, 

the appeal is dismissed.1 No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate 

will issue forthwith.

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish.

 

1 Appellant previously filed a motion to abate this appeal. The motion is rendered moot.
D. J. D., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-731

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* 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

February 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40315

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO MONTEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-343-1

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Montez appeals his sentence for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of

marijuana. Montez argues that the evidence is insufficient to

support sentence enhancements imposed for obstruction of justice

and for his role in the offense. Montez’s arguments are not

reviewable on appeal because he waived both issues at sentencing. 

United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Darryl B. HILL, Petitioner, v. Iris Elizabeth HILL and Ponte Vedra Animal Hospital, Inc., Respondents.

Case No. 5D18-1192

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2018

Erin R. Whitmore and Joshua R. La Bouef, of Brennan Manna Diamond, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Iris Elizabeth Hill, Palm Coast, pro se.

No Appearance for Other Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Hill petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, challenging the denial of his timely motion to disqualify the trial judge presiding over the below proceedings. After a review of the record, including the transcript from the hearing described in Hill's motion to disqualify, we conclude that comments made by the judge at that hearing "were sufficient to put a reasonably prudent person in well-founded fear of not receiving a fair or impartial hearing or trial." *State v. Gresham* , 214 So.3d 780, 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing *Shuler v. Green Mountain Ventures, Inc.* , 791 So.2d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that fear of judicial bias giving rise to disqualification motion must be objectively reasonable) ). Accordingly, we grant the petition and issue the writ of prohibition.

PETITION GRANTED.

COHEN, C.J., and LAMBERT, J., concur.

TORPY, J., dissents without opinion.
August 4, 2011

Mr. John W. Byers Aphelion Aviation, Inc

82 Hart Field Road, Suite 24 Morgantown, WV 26505

Dear Mr. Byers:

This is in response to your July 25, 2011 letter (public docket No. FAA-2011-0790) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Aphelion Aviation, Inc. (Aphelion) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Aphelion to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation.

Upon review of Aphelion’s certificate record, th e FAA did not find any record of a part 135 air operator certificate. On July 28, 2011, we spoke to Mr. John Byers, co-owner and designated employer representative of Aphelion and confirmed that they do not have a part 135 operating certificate. According to Mr. Byers, he co-owns the air tour operation with Mr. Michael Nichols. Mr. Nichols is the mechanic who performs all maintenance and preventive maintenance. According to Mr. Nichols, he contracts directly with a part 121 operator through Aphelion and was requesting the exemption for that reason.

The FAA has determined that an exemption from part 120 is not applicable since Aphelion Aviation, Inc. does not have a part 135 operating certificate.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
#### Clarence BAUGH Jr. *v.*City of PINE BLUFF

74-287

520 S.W. 2d 275

Opinion delivered March 10, 1975

*Reinberger, Eilbotl, Smith & Staten,*for appellant.

*Tim Boe,*City Atty., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

On June 14, 1972, the *769appellant was fined $10 in the Pine Bluff municipal court, upon a charge of “driving left of center.” Within two weeks he appealed to the circuit court, apparently remaining at liberty on bond. On June 24, 1974, the circuit court set the case for trial on July 18. On July 9 the appellant filed a motion to dismiss the case, on the broad ground that he had been denied a speedy trial as guaranteed by the federal constitution and the state constitution and statutes. On the date set for trial, July 18, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the appeal from the municipal court and directing that a capias issue against the defendant to enforce the municipal court’s judgment. The defendant filed a notice of appeal from that order.

In this court the appellant argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charge, because the case was not brought to trial in the circuit within three terms of court, as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1709 (Repl. 1964). To support his argument the appellant relies upon our holding in *Holland*v. *State,*252 Ark. 730, 480 S.W. 2d 597 (1972).

' Upon the meager record before us we cannot sustain the appellant’s contention. In *Holland*the appellant showed by stipulation and apparently by other proof that three terms of court had elapsed since her arrest and that the delay had not happened upon her application. In the case at bar there is no similar proof. The appellant, as the moving party, had the burden of proving facts to support his motion to dismiss, but there is actually no proof in the record. If a hearing was held, we have no transcript of the proceedings. Apart from the pleadings and the judgment the record contains only a copy of the court’s docket sheet, which contains notations of the order setting the case for trial, of the denial of the motion to dismiss, and of the dismissal of the appeal. There is no showing that the docket sheet was introduced in evidence. A docket notation is not the entry of a judgment and cannot be used to supply a deficiency in the record. *Hollaway*v. Berenzen, 208 Ark. 849, 188 S.W. 2d 298 (1945). Hence there is no proof that the delay did not happen upon the appellant’s application.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

I, T. Stephen Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Immtech International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


   Date:  August 9, 2004


   /s/ T. Stephen Thompson
   ----------------------------------------
   T. Stephen Thompson
   President & Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

REGINALD C. GILBERT §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 0012 4

- C R

Appeal from the

142 nd Judicial D istrict Court

o f Midland County, Texas

TC # CR57 648

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reginald C. Gilbert, acting pro se , appealed the trial court’s “Order Denying Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction ,” signed on June 6, 2022. 1 On July 22, 2022, this

Court received notice updating the contact and representation information for Gilbert. On

August 31, 2022, Gilbert , through new counsel, filed his “Appellant’s Motion to Voluntarily

Dismiss Appeal” in this Court. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 4 2

. 2 (governing voluntary dismissals in criminal

cases). Gilbert and counsel both signed the written motion. See i d. The motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed.

1 This case was transferred from our sister court, the Eastland Court of Appeals, pursuant to the Texas Supreme

Court’s docket equalization efforts. See T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Eastland

Court of Appeals to the exten t they mig ht conflict with our own. See T EX .R.A PP .P . 41.3.2

September 13, 2022

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ , Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
# U.S. Navy News Feed

News from U.S Navy.

- POTM - May 2024 Plan of the Month May 2024
- POTM - April 2024 Plan of the Month April 2024
- POTM - March 2024 Plan of the Month for March 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements for Michael Anthony Jewleers, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,196
<INVENTORY>                                     12,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,961
<PP&E>                                          42,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,701
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,644
<SALES>                                        129,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,949
<CGS>                                          107,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,869
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   284
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,213)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,601)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1104 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1104

  To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting a work 
authorization to an alien found to have been unlawfully present in the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2021

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting a work 
authorization to an alien found to have been unlawfully present in the 
                             United States.

    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 ``Equal Protection for American 
Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN WORK AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Effective beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security is prohibited from granting a work 
authorization to an alien who has been finally determined, in a valid 
immigration proceeding during which due process was afforded, to have 
been at any time unlawfully present in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Lynetta PERKINS, Appellant, v. Chaneshia SNOW or, Chaneisha Warren, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1694

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Greenway Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Lubin, Sherline, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>ELRAC, Inc., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Carman, Callahan &amp; Ingham, LLP (Jeffrey P. Saxon, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 29, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs. </p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based on its untimely submission (<i>see</i> 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 [c]).</p><p>For the reasons stated in <a href="../2016/2016_51774.htm" target="_blank"><i>Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC, Inc. </i>(54 Misc 3d 126</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51774[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2016]), the order is affirmed. </p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: September 15, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS CONTAINED
IN THE  COMPANY'S  ANNUAL  REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                 JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                   MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                                             125,919
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    1,708,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       860,123
<INVENTORY>                                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 1,380,211
<PP&E>                                                             539,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      32,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   7,108,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            1,811,349
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                            28,881
<OTHER-SE>                                                       4,864,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     7,108,929
<SALES>                                                          3,344,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 3,344,559
<CGS>                                                            1,875,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    5,329,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   777,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 403,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (3,165,889)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      (546,677)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (3,165,889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     65,000
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (2,554,212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         (.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            0
        


</TABLE>
Ronald B. HAIMOWITZ, DC#H07976, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3199

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 23, 2018

Ronald B. Haimowitz, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.