alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Palash Benedict D COSTA; Magdalina Mithun D Costa; A.J.D.; A.C.D., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1097

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 22, 2017

Decided: September 6, 2017

Michael E. Piston, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Imran R. Zaidi, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*173Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Palash Benedict D Costa, Magdalina Mi-thun D Costa, A.J.D., and A.C.D., natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re D Costa*(B.I.A. Dec. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
A.W., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3652

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-1159

Filed June 29, 2016

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

AKEEN ELIJAH PORTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, James B. Malloy, 

District Associate Judge.

Akeen Porte appeals his guilty plea and sentence to operating while 

intoxicated, third offense, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.

Shawn Smith of Shawn Smith, Attorney at Law, P.L.L.C., Ames, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli A. Huser and Kevin R. 

Cmelik, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

Akeen Porte pled guilty to operating while intoxicated, third offense, and 

was sentenced. He has appealed, arguing two brief points: (1) trial counsel was 

ineffective in failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment, claiming his plea was 

not knowing and voluntary and (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to inform 

Porte of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.

The first issue hinges on resolution of the second issue because his 

knowing-and-voluntary claim is that he was not adequately informed of the 

immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Counsel is required to advise a 

criminal defendant client “whether his [or her] plea carries a risk of deportation.” 

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010). When an attorney fails to do so, 

counsel breaches an essential duty. Id. at 370-71; see also Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-91 (1984). In order to prevail on a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, Porte must also show he was prejudiced. 

Padilla, 559 U.S. at 374. 

On the record before us, we cannot determine what advice or counsel 

Porte’s attorney gave him. So, we cannot determine whether counsel breached 

a duty and, if so, whether Porte was prejudiced. Accordingly, we affirm Porte’s 

conviction and preserve his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for 

postconviction relief.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Premiere Global Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Michael E.
Havener, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Michael E. HavenerMichael E. HavenerChief Financial OfficerPremiere Global Services, Inc.May 5, 2005
Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Kairus K. Tarapore



 Exhibit 10.8 
 

 
 December 30, 2008 
 Kairus K. Tarapore 
 [Address] 
 Re:    Executive Employment Agreement 
 Dear Kairus: 
 This letter will constitute an amendment clarifying the terms of your Executive Employment Agreement, amended and restated November 9, 2007
(“Employment Agreement”), which amendment is intended to assure compliance with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. 
 Section 1.10, which defines “Good Reason,” will require you to provide Ceridian a 30-day period for the opportunity to cure any event for which you have provided written notice. 
 Sections 4.03(a) and 7.03(f), concerning the execution of a release, are amended to require that you submit your executed release to Ceridian within 30
days of your termination of employment. In addition, the last sentence of the form of Release attached to your Employment Agreement will be revised to read as follows: “If I do not return to Ceridian an executed duplicate original of this
Release within 30 days following my termination of employment, Ceridian will have no obligation to make the payment described herein.” 
 Please acknowledge your acceptance of the terms of this amendment to your Employment Agreement by executing this letter where indicated below and returning it to the undersigned. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 CERIDIAN CORPORATION

	
	 /s/ Michael W. Sheridan

	Michael W. Sheridan, Executive Vice President,
	General Counsel and Secretary


  

	
	 Accepted:

	
	 /s/ Kairus K. Tarapore

	Kairus K. Tarapore
	Date: December 30, 2008
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, John P. Byrnes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ JOHN P. BYRNESJohn P. Byrnes Chief Executive Officer


August 5, 2009
Case 1:00-cr-00094-HJW Document 156 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (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.



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 10, 2008 |  | /s/Alan F. Schultz     
|                         |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
Harriet OPENDEN, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1475

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Mounir BOUKERROUCHA, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60562 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 3, 2017

Kathleen C. Gasparian, Gasparian Immigration, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner

*215W. Daniel Shieh, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Enitan' Otunla, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Mounir Boukerroucha, a native and citizen of Algeria, seeks review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order of removal and decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Boukerroucha’s request for relief was based on his claim that he would be persecuted if he returned to Algeria because he evaded Algeria’s military conscription laws.

In his petition for review, Boukerroucha challenges only the denial of his withholding of removal claim. He contends that the IJ erred by refusing to admit specific evidence and by determining that he is no longer subject to military conscription in Algeria and would be eligible for regularization. He also urges that the decision to deny withholding of removal is not supported by substantial evidence.

With respect to his challenge to the IJ’s evidentiary rulings, Boukerroucha did not raise this issue before the BIA, *See Roy v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). Because the issue was not exhausted, we lack jurisdiction to review it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); *Omari v. Holder,*562 F.3d 314, 319 (5th Cir. 2009).

Boukerroucha’s second contention—that the IJ erred by determining that he was no longer subject to military conscription in Algeria and would be eligible for regularization—goes to the issue of whether the record compels the conclusion that Boukerroucha is entitled to withholding of removal based on his violation of Algeria’s conscription laws. Relying on *Milat v. Holder,*755 F.3d 354, 361 (5th Cir. 2014), the BIA agreed with the IJ that Bouker-roucha did not demonstrate that if he returned to Algeria the penalty imposed “would be disproportionately severe on account of a protected ground” or that he “would be required to engage in inhumane conduct as part of military service.”

The evidence presented does not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Chen v. Gonzales,*470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); *Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

*

 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.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 27, 2009

s0518 

# Order

May 27, 2009

137849

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137849 COA: 278740 Wayne CC: 06-009547-02 MAKARRA SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 14, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered

submitted without oral argument.

1

 We grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 3/19/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

OSCAR DAVIS, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

vs. ) No. 95-6264

) (D.C. No. CIV-94-2139-R)

LARRY A. FIELDS; RON ) (W.D. Okla.)

CHAMPION, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

 

Plaintiff Oscar Davis Jr., appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s Judgment

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.1

 Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights action alleging that Defendants violated his rights to due process and equal
protection by removing him from a lower security prison facility to a higher one. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court referred Plaintiff’s complaint to the magistrate judge for

recommendation. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond to the motion for

summary judgment, and the court ordered a Martinez report. After review of Plaintiff’s

complaint, the Martinez report, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the

magistrate recommended that the district court grant Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, or that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous. The district court

adopted the recommendation after a de novo review, granted Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous.

On appeal Plaintiff argues that the district court erred by granting Defendants’

motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint because Defendants violated

his due process and equal protection rights. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the

entire record before us, and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the

magistrate’s recommendation.

AFFIRMED 

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0176 SAT Date: 1/4/2013 Print Date: 3/4/2014

Related cases : Health related cases: Ecotox related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 1 1 PMN 3 3 Deg Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: N o exposures needed Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords:
Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0176 FATE: Liquid with MP < 25 °C (E) S = N egl. VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strongPBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Deg Pdt P3B3 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes ( p che m ). N o significant health concerns. Test Data: (-) Salmonella with and without activation; (-) E. coli with and without activation; rat oral LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; no skin irritation in rabbits; no eye irritation in rabbits

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value *
algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for liquid with unknown mp (P); S < 0.000001 g/L (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs SAR Class Ecotox Category

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of ERHC Energy Inc., a Colorado corporation
(the  "Company"),  on Form 10-K for the year ended  September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  Walter Brandhuber,
Chief  Executive  Officer,  President  and Director of the Company,  does hereby
certify,  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350), that to his knowledge:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.



/s/ Walter Brandhuber
-----------------------------------------------
Walter Brandhuber
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
April 13, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-25-1996
<CASH>                                          44,900
<SECURITIES>                                    32,035
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,834
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,604
<INVENTORY>                                    166,173
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,899
<PP&E>                                         282,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 514,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,334
<BONDS>                                        108,967
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       263,455
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   514,537
<SALES>                                        568,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               568,915
<CGS>                                          410,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  410,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,603
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,323
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,898
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,620
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
        

</TABLE>
James HUNT, Appellant, v. HEALTH FIRST HRMC and USIS, Appellees.

No. 1D17-665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0001 SAT Date: 10/15/2014

Print Date: 2/3/2015

Related cases : CBI : Health related cases: Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 2

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG; IRR-E,MM,L; AQUATOX Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0001-06 FATE: with 1.94% < 500 and 11.12% < 1000 P-15-0001: Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) P-15-0002-06: Solid S = Disp. VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wkSorption to soils/sediments = strong PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow

Health : Health Summary: N ot absorbed through the skin; absorption of low molecular weight fractions (2 - 3% <500, 11 - 12% <1000) is expected to be poor from the GI tract and moderate from the lung (analog). Concern for surfactant effects on the lung; irritation to eye, mucous membranes and lung based on surfactant properties of the compounds.

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 2.8 daphnid 48-h LC50 2.8 green algal 96-h EC50 0.72 fish

_ chronic value 0.43 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.43
algal

_ chronic value 0.18
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR chemical class = with 11.1% < 1000 and 1.9% < 500; S = 0.12 mg/L @ 20 C (P); liquid with unknown mp (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 18

SARs SAR Class
Ecotox Category
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
BEN YEHUDA MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-1688

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of Oncologix Tech, Inc.



Subsidiaries of Registrant





|Subsidiary                            | State of Incorporation or Jurisdiction | Percent of Ownership of Oncologix Tech, Inc.
|------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|Dotolo Research Corporation           | Louisiana                              | 100%                                        
|Angels of Mercy, Inc.                 | Louisiana                              | 100%                                        
|Oncologix Corporation                 | Nevada                                 | 90%                                         
|International Environment Corporation | Delaware                               | 100%                                        
|Interpretel (Canada) Inc.             | Province of Ontario                    | 100%                                        
|Interpretel, Inc.                     | Arizona                                | 100%                                        
|Telplex International                 | Arizona                                | 100%