alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maria Alicia Juana Duran MARTINEZ, AKA Alicia Duran, AKA Juana Martinez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72975

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 15, 2017

*564Larry Liem Doan, Attorney, Law Offices of Larry L. Doan, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, 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 **

Maria Alicia Juana Duran Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly concluded that Duran Martinez was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because she is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), where substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that she reentered the United States without being admitted, after previously accruing more than one year of unlawful presence. *See Garfias-Rodriguez v.*Holder, 702 F.Sd 504, 513-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Contrary to Duran Martinez’s contention, the agency did not rely on her witness’s testimony in making that determination.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Rebecca JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1456

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 1, 2017

Rebecca Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Bernadette M. Hunton, Darrell Robert Van-Deusen, KOLLMAN *&*SAUCIER, PA, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rebecca Jones appeals the district court’s entry of a settlement order dismissing her action brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (West 2012 *&*Supp. 2015). Jones also appeals the district court’s order striking her motion to reopen the proceedings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).* We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

After Jones filed her complaint, she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and identified this lawsuit as an asset in her bankruptcy schedules. Consequently, this lawsuit became the property of the estate that was created when Jones filed the bankruptcy petition. *See*11 U.S.C. § 541(a) (2012); *In re Bogdan,*414 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir. 2005). Further, the filing of the bankruptcy petition resulted in the bankruptcy trustee becoming the only party with standing to prosecute this action. *See Parker v. Wendy’s Int'l, Inc.,*365 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2004); *Nat'l Am. Ins. Co. v. Ruppert Landscaping Co.,*187 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 1999).

Once the trustee and the defendant informed the district court that a settlement had been reached, the district court dismissed the action. Jones objected to the settlement in the district court and moved to reopen the case. The district court entered an order striking Jones’s motion to reopen on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion and that Jones lacked standing to object to the settlement. The bankruptcy court subsequently approved the settlement reached in this action over Jones’s objection.

We agree with the district court that Jones lacks standing to object to the settlement order entered in this case as a result of her filing for bankruptcy and identifying this lawsuit as an asset. *See Parker,*365 F.3d at 1272; *Nat'l Am. Ins. Co.,*187 F.3d at 441. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, affirm the district court’s order striking Jones’s motion to reopen, and dismiss Jones’s ap*170peal from the settlement order. 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.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART*

*

 Although Jones neither amended her notice of appeal to identify the district court's order striking her motion to reopen nor filed a separate notice of appeal from that order, we conclude that Jones’s informal brief serves as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal with respect to that order. *See Smith v. Barry,*502 U.S. 244, 248-49, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Kimberly S. Patmore, the
Chief Financial Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Kimberly S. Patmore
|                       |  |  |  | Kimberly S. Patmore    
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Steven LAPLANTE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-2836

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 6, 2018

Eilam Isaak of Isaak Law, PLLC, Tampa, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### IN RE: George Washington CRANE, V, Petitioner.

No. 17-1435

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

George Washington Crane, V, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Washington Crane, V petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied Crane’s motion on May 1, 2017. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Crane’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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*
Exhibit








CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE REDACTED PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT. THE REDACTIONS ARE INDICATED WITH “[**]”. A COMPLETE VERSION OF THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.


Exhibit 10.41


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CO-PROMOTION AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 24, 2017


This Second Amendment to the Co-Promotion Agreement dated January 24, 2017 is entered into this 21st day of December, 2018 (“First Amendment Effective Date”), between PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., a Delaware corporation (“PACIRA”), and DEPUY SYNTHES SALES, INC., a Massachusetts corporation (“DEPUY SYNTHES”), together with PACIRA, the “Parties” and each a “Party”.


Any capitalized terms not expressly defined herein shall have the meaning stated in the Agreement (as defined below).


RECITALS


WHEREAS PACIRA and DEPUY SYNTHES entered into the Co-Promotion Agreement dated January 24, 2017 (the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to include additional terms related to compensation and roles and responsibilities; and


NOW THEREFORE, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement by entering into this First Amendment (the “Second Amendment”) in accordance with the following.


AGREEMENT


1. Amendment of Section 5.1(iv)


Section 5.1(iv) of the Agreement is replaced by the following:


[**]


2. Exhibit A is of the Agreement replaced and superseded by the Exhibit A attached to this Second Amendment.


3. The Parties further agree that, except as modified by this First Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.


4. This Second Amendment shall be effective as of the date it is signed by the last of the Parties.


In witness whereof, the Parties hereto sign this First Amendment in all its pages on the date indicated below.


	
			
	PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 
	DEPUY SYNTHES SALES, INC.

	 
	 
	 

	By: /s/ DAINA BORTECK
	 
	By: /s/ MAX REINHARDT

	Name: Daina Borteck
	 
	Name: Max Reinhardt

	Title: Associate General Counsel
	 
	Title: VP Marketing

	Date: December 21, 2018
	 
	Date: December 21, 2018






















[**] - Indicates certain information has been redacted and filed separately with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the redacted portions.









EXHIBIT A


DETAILED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES


[**]


[**] - Indicates certain information has been redacted and filed separately with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the redacted portions.
Board of Directors

Todd Gutschow The Honorable Ray LaHood

Chairman U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Aye, SE

MelendyLovett Washington, DC 20590 Vice Chairman

Clarence Fields Re: Alaska Airiines’ appEcation for SAN-DCA, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029.

Secretary and Treasurer

Dear Secretary LaHood:

Mary Catherine Swanson

Founder AVID Center fully supports the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and WashingtonPeie Garcia Reagan National Airport (DCA). San Diego is the largest region without announced service to OCA.

Dave Gordon Additionally, due to the profound community of interest between San Diego and the nation’s capital, theGenetMaeroii region generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to the convenient and

Or. Lionel ‘Sklp MenD close-in airport serving our nation’s capital.

Or. Monte Moses

Jim Nelson San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego — Dulles average airfares Aracelia vila

. . . . .

.

Dr. Stephen Weber are the highest of west coast cities should quality it for a pair of the limited slots available. The high airfare is

exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to Washington’s city center that average about $60 each

National Headquarters way. This means travelers between Washington’s city center and San Diego via Dulles can pay on average

AVID Center close to $400 one-way.9246 Lightwave Avenue

Suite 200 As a non-profit that travels to the DC area frequently we would be very much in favor of seeing a non-stop San Diego, CA 92123Phone:858.380.4800 added to reduce costs.

Fax: 858.268.2265

There are also counUess other San Diego-based and Washington-based businesses that are engaged in health

Central Division science, telecommunications, and national defense that need quick and convenient access to Reagan National 11044 Research Blvd. Airport. AVID Center has an immediate need for addftional nonstop air service to our nation’s capital. Alaska

Austin, fl 78759 Airlines service would add a needed nonstop option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC. AVID Center

Phone: 512.669.5900 joins with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Fax: 512.255.7366 Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in

Eastern Division support of Alaska Airlines’ application for San Diego — Washington Reagan National slots.3 Corporate Boulevard

Suite 118 We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to Comment on the above referenced docket and

we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Afrtines’ San Diego — DCA proposal soon.

Fax: 404963.9296

SinCerely,

Western Division 4’

5389 Greenwood Placa livd. 1

Greenwoedvillage, CD 80111

phone:303.436.2200 Colleen Arena, CTEFax: 303.741.0135 Assistant Director Corporate Travel & Administration

www.avid.org
Elena WHITBY a/k/a Jennifer Ross, James Crystal Holdings, Inc., James Crystal Licenses, LLC, and James Crystal Enterprises, LLC, Appellants, v. CBS RADIO STATIONS, INC., f/k/a Infinity Radio, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1717

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jeffrey Lawrence MacDonald, Appellant

No. 06-15-00195-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 188th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 44,604-

A). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and 

Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the assessment of 

attorney fees. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Jeffrey Lawrence MacDonald, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 27, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**EXHIBIT 23.2****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-137748, 333-105368,333-88684, 333-85720 and 333-32678 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 17, 2008, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of RAE Systems Inc. (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), *Share Based Payment*, and Financial Standards AccountingBoard Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty inIncome Taxes an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109* and our report dated March17, 2008 relating to the effectiveness of RAE Systems Inc. internal control over financialreporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAE Systems Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2007./s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Natural Gas Services Group, 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 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)
    
    Omitted;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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.
  /s/ Earl R. WaitEarl R. Wait, Vice President-Accounting
(Principal Financial Officer)
<<Moss
      Adams Letterhead>>


Exhibit
        23.1
 
 
 
 CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 The
        Board
        of Directors
 Pacific
        Continental Corporation and Subsidiary
 
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
        of
        Pacific Continental Corporation and Subsidiary (Pacific Continental Corporation)
        of our report dated March 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated statement
        of financial position of Pacific Continental Corporation as of December 31,
        2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
        stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2005, and
        in our same report, with respect to Pacific Continental Corporation management’s
        assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
        and
        the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report
        is
        included in this annual report on Form 10-K of Pacific Continental Corporation
        for the year ended December 31, 2005.
 
 /s/
        Moss
        Adams
 
 Portland,
        Oregon
 March
        13,
        2006
EX PARTE Shawn M. DICKINSON

CR-16-0333

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18- 0 5 60 IN THE MATTER OF: S.N., Respondent and Appellant. ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 26 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 20 2020

04/20/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0560
Abrion M. WITCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2891

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
The STATE of Florida, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Jose Luis PEREZ, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1459

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
SOVEREIGN HEALTHCARE OF METRO WEST, LLC, Southern Healthcare Management, LLC, Sovereign Healthcare Disbursements, LLC and Lenora Smith, Appellants, v. ESTATE OF Debra Ann DOPSON BY AND THROUGH Ameka K. DOPSON, Personal Representative, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1216

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

Karen M. Shimonsky and Thomas A. Valdez, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Megan L. Gisclar and Joanna Greber Dettloff, of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 16

- 00769

- CV

R. P., Appellant

v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, NO. C150047CPS, GARY L. BANKS, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant R.P. filed his notice of appeal on November 21, 2016

. The appellate
record was complete December 5, 2016 , making appellant ’ s brief due December 27, 2016

.
On December 27, 2016
, counsel for appellant filed a motion for ex tension of time to file
appellant’s brief.

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition
of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a)
(providing 180 days for court’s final d isposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this
Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion a nd order
counsel to file appellant ’ s brief no later than January 17, 2017 . If the brief is not filed by that

date, c ounsel may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on December 29, 2016.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland
Todd KOZEL, Appellant, v. Ashley KOZEL, Inga Kozel, Gokana Trust, 3601 Setai LLC, and 212 West 18 LLC, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-4853

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander, and Brian C. Tackenberg of Crabtree & Auslander, Key Biscayne, for Appellant.

Jeffrey D. Fisher and Zachary R. Potter of Fisher Potter Hodas, P.L., West Palm Beach; Steven L. Brannock, Philip J. Padovano, and Joseph T. Eagleton of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, for Appellee Ashley Kozel.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
David Kurt SPEARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2720

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.