alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carmen VALUS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71577

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration *763Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Carmen Valus, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo constitutional claims. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Valus’ motion to reopen, based on lack of notice, where Valus was personally served a Notice to Appear that informed her of her obligation to update the court with a current address, and the notice of her hearing was mailed to the most recent address she provided, but was returned as undeliverable. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen in absentia .proceedings based on lack of notice may be filed at any time); 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c) (“Service by mail [of a hearing notice] shall be sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery to the last address provided by the alien ... ”); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Notice of Valus’ hearing also comported with due process. *See Popa v. Holder,*571 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Due process is satisfied if service is conducted in a manner reasonably calculated to ensure that notice reaches the alien.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

Contrary to Valus’ contention, the agency did not violate due process by allegedly iiot providing the contents of the Notice to Appear in Romanian. *See Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 1150, 1155 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law does not require that the Notice to Appear ... be in any language other than English.”); *Lata,*204 F.3d at 1246.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882974
<NAME> CHESTNUT REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      54,111,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,111,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,111,542
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               693,163
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  922,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (229,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (229,346)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         343
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    333,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         1,683,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (483,022)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,745,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          852,573
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,590
<OTHER-SE>                                     888,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,745,033
<SALES>                                        172,342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191,334
<CGS>                                          11,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  167,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               18,992
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                   12,894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   12,894
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        




</TABLE>
DRAFT 12-18-09 

Subj to Review 

PREPARING FOR USE - Site Specific Considerations 

Understanding the risks associated with the application of product is essential to aid in 

preventing off-site injury to desirable vegetation and agricultural crops. The risk of offsite movement both during and after application may be affected by a number of site 

specific factors such as the nature, texture and stability of the soil, the intensity and 

direction of prevailing winds, vegetative cover, site slope, rainfall, drainage patterns, and 

other local physical and environmental conditions. A careful evaluation of the potential 

for off-site movement from the intended application site, including movement of treated 

soil by wind or water erosion, must be made prior to using product. This evaluation is 

particularly critical where desirable vegetation or crops are grown on neighboring land 

for which the use of product is not labeled. If prevailing local conditions may be expected 

to result in off-site movement and cause damage to neighboring desirable vegetation or 

agricultural crops, do not apply product. 

Before applying product the user must read and understand all label directions, 

precautions and restrictions completely, including these requirements for a site specific 

evaluation. If you do not understand any of the instructions or precautions on the label, 

or are unable to make a site specific evaluation yourself, consult your local agricultural 

dealer, cooperative extension service, land managers, professional consultants, or other 

qualified authorities familiar with the area to be treated. If you still have questions 

regarding the need for site specific considerations, please call 1-888-6-DUPONT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-24-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-2000
<CASH>                                          51,612
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    159,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               261,747
<PP&E>                                         413,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                 139,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 588,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          174,993
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,315)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   588,640
<SALES>                                      1,811,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,811,754
<CGS>                                        1,366,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,366,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               421,929
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,803)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,350)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,123
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,227)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (144.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (144.54)


</TABLE>
Thomas BOSTICK, DOC #T13088 Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3131

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Urologix FDS for 3rd Quarter Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1997  
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997 
<CASH>                                        697,349  
<SECURITIES>                               29,484,308
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,528,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                 1,712,039 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           33,702,400      
<PP&E>                                      1,910,858      
<DEPRECIATION>                                582,336    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             38,186,735      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,901,434
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                       91,737 
<OTHER-SE>                                 35,149,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               38,186,735
<SALES>                                     1,789,500         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,789,500         
<CGS>                                       1,524,123          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,524,123          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,553,226      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            2,287,849     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,869,766)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,869,766)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,869,766) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.20) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0705 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-052-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certificationof**

**ChiefFinancial Officer of**

**TGCIndustries, Inc.**

**Pursuantto**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and accompanies the annual reporton Form 10-K/A (the “Form 10-K/A”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,2009, of TGC Industries, Inc. (the “Company”).  I, James K. Brata, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Form 10-K/A fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Form 10-K/Afairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-K/A pursuant to Item 601(6)(32) of Regulation S-Kand Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K/A for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.

 

 
| Date:  May 4, 2010 | By:                                           | /s/ James K.  Brata |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                    | James K. Brata                                |
|                    | Chief Financial  Officer                      |
|                    | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

1

----
Order filed February 8, 2018. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00010-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.K.M.L., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-33344

ORDER

A hearing on a request for amicus attorney’s fees was held in trial court cause 

number 2011-33344, as reflected in the Judgment for Amicus Attorney Fees signed 

on February 28, 2014, by the Honorable Denise Pratt. The hearing was held in the 

311th District Court in Harris County before the Honorable Denise Judge Pratt. The 

hearing may have begun on December 13, 2013 and continued through December 

20, 2013. No record of that hearing has been filed with this court.

We order the court reporter for the 311th District Court, to notify this court 

whether a record was taken of that hearing. If a record was taken, the court reporter 
is directed to inform the court whether appellant, Leon David Lehman, Jr., has made 

arrangements to pay for the record. If no record was made, the court reporter is 

directed to certify to this court that no record was taken. The court reporter is directed 

to respond to this order within 20 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Wise.

2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


In connection with the Annual Report of SED
International Holdings, Inc (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Mark Diamond, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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 results of operations of the Company, and for, the
    periods presented in this Report.



| |                                        
| | ---------------------------------------
| | /s/ MARK DIAMOND                       
| |                                        
| | Mark Diamond                           
| | President & Chief Executive
    Officer
| | (Principal Executive Officer)          

Dated: September 17, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate document.
SI0-1{K)9()1-()7S 

OWENS CORNINQ 

114S1 WEST AIRPORT SERVICE ROAD 

SVW.TON.OH.3553 ^^^PARTMEN T OF 

.- •^M OPERMIONS 

' m nCT ! 2 A S: ! 2 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 7Vn Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590 

August 26,2010 

Secretary LaHood: 

The Toledo Express Airport has suffered from a significant decline in its air service over the 

past decade. Airline capacity at Toledo Express is down 66% from 2002 and the number 

of airlines serving the community is down from six to three. 

In light of this circumstance the Toledo Express Airport and its community partners have 

made an application for a Small Community Air Service Development Program Grant. 

This Grant would be used for an aggressive and extended marketing and promotional 

campaign to recapture Toledo area air travel demand that is now using alternative 

airports 

The Airport and its partners will match the Grant funding with a significant local cash 

match. The Airport has also developed a comprehensive new air service incentive 

program, including ground handling support and startup phase fee waivers. The 

combination of the Grant supported marketing and promotional funding and the Airport 

developed incentive program will give Toledo the tools it needs to reverse the leakage 

of local air travel demand to other airports and re-establish some of the air service that 

has been tost in recent years. 

I urge you to give the Toledo Small Community Grant Application your fullest 

consideration. Favorable consideration of this Grant application by the Department of 

Transportation would be greatty appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

/ OWLNS 

'COIiNING • • 

MNOtUHNH m mi * 

TerryT. Smith 

Director flight Operations 

Owens Coming 

OWENS CORNING