alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Senior Judge Hall was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7662

JOHN FRANK BOWEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-96-43-5-V) Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: September 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, * Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Frank Bowen, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Bowen appeals the district court’s order denying Bowen’s petition for removal of his state court criminal prosecution to federal district court and denying his motion to restrain the State of North Carolina. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Bowen v. State of North Carolina, No. CA-96-43-5-V (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 1998). We note that Bowen’s notice of removal was improperly filed because it was untimely. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(c)(1) (West1994 & Supp. 1999) (requiring that a notice of removal in a criminal case be filed within thirty days after arraignment). Because the notice of removal was untimely, the district court did not err in failing to remand or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Inderjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73434

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*575Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Inderjit Kaur, Pro Se

Theresia C. Sandhu, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Theresia C. Sandhu, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner

Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Inderjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny Kaur’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(1). *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Knur fails to raise a col-orable constitutional claim or question of law to invoke our jurisdiction. *See Corona-Mendez v. Holder,*593 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court has jurisdiction to review a discretionary determination only if it involves constitutional claims or questions of law); *Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder,*688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (a claim that the agency did not properly weigh hardship evidence does not state a color-able due process claim); *De Mercado v. Mukasey,*566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2009) (evaluating hardship to a qualifying relative necessarily implicates family unity, and to carve out an exception to lack of jurisdiction would “swallow the rule itself’).

In light of this decision, we need not reach Kaur’s contentions regarding the Id’s credibility finding.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Publicatieblad C 182A/14 j

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 182A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 57e jaargang14 juni 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0995

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 182A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

57e jaargang14 juni 2014

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Adviezen |
| | BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES |
| | Europees Bureau voor personeelsselectie (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Aankondiging van annulering | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

V   Adviezen

BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES

Europees Bureau voor personeelsselectie (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Aankondiging van annulering

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Overzicht van de in de C A-Serie van het Publicatieblad gepubliceerde Vergelijkende onderzoeken | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Overzicht van de in de C A-Serie van het Publicatieblad gepubliceerde Vergelijkende onderzoeken

2

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

V Adviezen

BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES

Europees Bureau voor personeelsselectie (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 182/1

---

AANKONDIGING VAN ANNULERING

2014/C 182 A/01

De algemene vergelijkende onderzoeken:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 — correctoren (AST 3) voor het Grieks (EL)

  en |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 — correctoren (AST 3) voor het Grieks (EL)

en

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 — correctoren (AST 3) voor het Portugees (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 — correctoren (AST 3) voor het Portugees (PT),

waarvan de aankondigingen werden gepubliceerd in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
   (1) zijn geannuleerd.

---

(1)  PB C 131 A van 8.5.2013, blz. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 182/2

---

OVERZICHT VAN DE IN DE C A-SERIE VAN HET PUBLICATIEBLAD GEPUBLICEERDE VERGELIJKENDE ONDERZOEKEN

2014/C 182 A/02

Hierbij vindt u een lijst van C A-publicatiebladen „Vergelijkende onderzoeken” die in 2014 tot op heden gepubliceerd werden.

Deze publicaties verschenen — tenzij anders vermeld — in alle officiële talen.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
---

# Exhibit 99.2

# Statement of Chief Financial Officer of RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
 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 of RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, W. Douglas Benn, Chief Financial 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:

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/ W. Douglas Benn
-------------------
W. Douglas Benn
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002
ei-xtered into between the parties ci'n June 1.5, 1972, was incorpora &XI 

into the decree of divorce, 

e i.ntrc?rpretatic>i.~ crfthat agreement is the basis al: 
AGREEMENT AN PROPERTY SISTTLEM 

"WHEREAS , ttre ties hereto are presently, wife 

and husband, R irreeoaciiabie ifferenees have 

ari,sc.n between em maicing impossible the cnntiriumce ra C t:he marriage relation. 

""AND WHEREAS, it is desired y the parties to 

achLeve a iegd separation and divorce, 

with a pro erty settlement and other agr 

upon as ami.caIaTe asis as ,is pussi 

curnst:,ances, and with as Zittie pubLieit:y attendant 

upon such proceedings as mi8 t be x.ea,sonab 

of at t.8 ixlmera t ; 

" 1, Plainti.ff, i.m~rrcdFatel.y nfter the ate of this agreement, 

wiiL cause to be repared and filed in Cascade County, 

Montana, an actio for diviiree against the above named 

Deferidant * * 9~ it, being contempla te tha,t said divorce will 

be obt.ai.ned upon the terms and condi,tians hereinafter set 

forth; l_iizferrdo.nt:, agrees that he w:.il nut in any wtiy contest 

or himper the obtaining 06 sai.d di.vor:re, arknewledgl.ng that 

grounds therefore exist, * .Jc *, 

1, ant wi.11 ir iately cause to be prepaa.ed 

a good and sufficient quit claim deed, and wiLL execute the 

some in favor of the PLzrintiff, to t e pcem.i.ses desirri 

as fol.Ecwi;: 
"d) In addition to t.he real.ty, Pl,.aiati.ff shall have 

title to, and possession of aJL furniture, equipment, 

.fi.xtriree, and furrrisktings i,n saki residence, 

"'f) [Stricken by parties and initialed], 
new husband conti ued to live in the residence, Defendant Marvin 

on April 9, 1975, after requesting the plaintiff to be relieved 

making the payments pursuant to t e property settlement agrc?exnent, 

payments, <?rid since plai.rkrrl.if f.ic?len had remarried, t eso payments 

after oral ar istrict court ardere 

"11, That: said :ie aration Agreement an3 Property 

Settlement prov,,i.de as foi.1.o~~ : 

5 8 liT, That the Defendant made payments 'o the Plaintiff 

of the aximxi required for the ouse payment.; ; 
ii ? By the way of achieving an adequate 

division of property, toget er wl th other 

itinms so that: isl.ainti.ff will, 

d for 8 ftee said divorce, and 

particular regard to her p ysFeaL condition,' 

sideration and vaoa'ii.rrg the aiiiended Pii~dings, conolixsi.orrs and order, 
'We kiave exadrrec! t a agreement of the parties and as 

agreed to pay, 
husband to pay the alimony at the time of his pstff::ion fur 

reiiwtion in the payment, dire to loss of iacoiire anil %,11. I-,:al.th, 
wMcl.s earmot be severed tkrelroni withcrut dest.royi.rx&; the contract, 

The trial euurt cannot, nor can this Court, rewrite the 

agreemecxs. for the parir.i.e.: herein, nor infer or ini~iiy fronr its 

Language chat which is not intended, 

Is vacated and set asi.de
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ICE LEGAL, P.A.,

Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE 

SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING AND RESIDENTIAL FINANCE TRUST 

MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-

BC2,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D14-1484 and 4D14-2358

[January 6, 2016]

Consolidated appeal and non-final appeal from the Circuit Court for the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Lucy Chernow Brown, 

Judge, and Susan Lubitz, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502008CA026320XXXXMB.

Thomas Erskine Ice and Amanda L. Lundergan of Ice Appellate, Royal 

Palm Beach, for appellant.

Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, William P. Heller of 

Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Victor R. Berwin and Eric M. Levine of 

Akerman LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure proceeding, the trial court set the case for trial after 

the defendant homeowner’s attorney had requested a continuance; 

however, he did not appear on the continued date for trial, and the case 

had to be continued again. The trial court entered an order requiring the 

“defense” to compensate the plaintiff bank for the travel costs of its 

witness, who had appeared, ready for trial. The homeowner filed a motion 

to strike the “sanctions.” Another trial judge set the amount of the costs 

at $714.50 and granted an extension for the homeowner to pay, not 

including defense counsel in the order. Later, after a final judgment of 

foreclosure was entered, another successor trial judge held both the 

defense counsel and the homeowner in contempt for failure to pay the 

travel costs pursuant to the order. The homeowner and defense counsel 
2

appeal, challenging the order awarding the travel costs as well as the 

contempt order making the defense counsel jointly responsible.

We reverse the order of contempt against the law firm. The order setting 

the amount of sanctions was entered prior to the final judgment and 

became final upon the entry of the final judgment of foreclosure. See 

Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So. 3d 248, 250 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2013); Green v. Callahan, 664 So. 2d 21, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). 

After the sanctions order became final, the successor trial judge was 

without authority to alter it by assessing the sanctions against defense 

counsel and the homeowner.

We affirm the original sanctions order, however. That order assessed 

costs against the homeowner caused by the last-minute continuance. The 

trial court has the authority to require the homeowner to pay for the costs 

of such continuances. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. M.G., 838 So. 2d 

703, 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Reversed in part; affirmed in part.

WARNER, CONNER, JJ., and LEVEY COHEN, MARDI, Associate Judge, concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose ROJAS-DUQUE, also known as Jose Rojas, also known as Rafael Carreno, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20757 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 28, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Rojas-Duque, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Rojas-Duque has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rojas-Duque has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected' therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir, R. 42.2.

*

 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.
G.L. EDWARDS, Lisa Edwards, Randy L. Ewing, Robert B. Greer, Billy Hakes, Steven W. Kelly, Stanley Knight, Jeffrey Scott McKaskle, Suzanne McKaskle, William James Slusher, Tonya Slusher, Hershel R. Sullivan, and Meseret Haile Sullivan v. LANDRY CHALET RENTALS, LLC

NO. 2018-C-05G2

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

Denied.
Filed 5/19/15 P. v. O’Neal CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

YOUNG O'NEAL,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B258416

(Super. Ct. No. PA077690)

(Los Angeles County)

Young O'Neal appeals after a jury convicted him of carrying a dirk or 

dagger (Pen. Code,1 § 21310) and found true allegations that he had suffered a prior 

strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and served five prior 

prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to six years in state 

prison and awarded him 614 days presentence custody credit. 

Los Angeles Police Officers James Galbraith and Heather Monroe were on 

patrol when they received a radio call regarding a disturbance at a liquor store. Appellant 

was named as the suspect. Officer Galbraith recognized appellant's name from prior 

encounters and knew he was on active parole with search terms. 

The officer subsequently detained appellant as he was walking through the 

liquor store's parking lot. During a parole search, a screwdriver was found in appellant's

rear pants pocket. The screwdriver had a flat head at the tip and was slightly bent. From 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

his experience, Officer Galbraith knew that screwdrivers of this type were often used as a 

weapon to inflict a "gaping, tearing wound." After waiving his Miranda2 rights, 

appellant said he was carrying the screwdriver for protection. 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's 

examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.

On February 18, 2015, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within 

which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We 

received no response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly ( 2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 

126.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

 

2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3

Cynthia Ulfig, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Thomas K. Macomber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-05-1997
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,251
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,595
<PP&E>                                          70,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,731)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,502
<SALES>                                         44,352
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,352
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    462
<INCOME-TAX>                                       143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       319
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Brion Umidi, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005      By: /s/ BRION UMIDI       Name: Brion Umidi   *Title: Chief Financial Officer*
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH and Corvel Corporation, Appellants, v. Richard HALSEY, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2362

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Micheal A. Edwards, West Palm Beach, for Appellants.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.