alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Sept. 17, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16909

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A075-842-610

SANDRA P. BEDOYA,

a.k.a. Bedoya,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(September 17, 2009)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sandra Bedoya, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the denial of her

applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and

Nationality Act and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. INA

§ 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The Board found that

Bedoya failed to establish past persecution, a probability of future persecution if

she returns to Colombia, or that she was eligible for withholding of removal. We

deny the petition.

Bedoya presents two arguments, and we lack jurisdiction to consider one of

those arguments. Bedoya argues that she was eligible for asylum because she

submitted evidence that paramilitaries persecuted her, in part, because they

believed that she associated with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Bedoya also argues that she was eligible for withholding of removal and relief

under the Convention, but she failed to present those arguments to the Board.

“[A]bsent a cognizable excuse or exception, we lack jurisdiction to consider claims

that have not been raised before the [Board].’” Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Bedoya failed to establish that

she suffered past persecution or faces future persecution on account of a protected

ground. See Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 438 (11th Cir. 2004). The

2
record supports the finding of the Board that Bedoya was a victim of extortion.

Bedoya testified that paramilitaries approached her and other persons in the

neighborhood who had “good jobs or businesses to extort money from them,” and

she was attacked “because [she] refused to give them what they wanted which was

the money.” Although Bedoya testified that the paramilitaries believed she had

cooperated with the Revolutionary Armed Forces, the record does not compel a

finding that Bedoya was targeted for that cooperation. Bedoya testified that the

paramilitaries asked her why, if she assisted the Revolutionary Armed Forces,

would she “not give the money to [the paramilitaries] to[o].” Bedoya also failed to

establish she has a well-founded fear of future persecution because her family has

remained in Colombia unharmed and her mother has returned to Bedoya’s

neighborhood. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006).

Bedoya’s petition for review is DENIED.

3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lauro GONZALEZ-DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40009 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

*146Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lauro Gonzalez-Dominguez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lauro Gonzalez-Dominguez 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). Gonzalez-Dominguez 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 nonfrivo-lous 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.
Gerard David MCCREE, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0071

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 12, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 12, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A14A1990. ELJUAN D. LOVE v. ALEXZANDRIA D. LOVE, BY HER CONSERVATOR, NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL PARENT, DEMETRIUS T. LOVE et al..
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         104,834
<SECURITIES>                                   444,270
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     53,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               637,116
<PP&E>                                         457,027
<DEPRECIATION>                                 337,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 809,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        31,382
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     692,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   809,940
<SALES>                                         94,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,817
<CGS>                                           37,881
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               190,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (173,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (173,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (173,817)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)



</TABLE>
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.13




Amendment No. 5 to the
Pfizer Supplemental Savings Plan (“PSSP”)


*     *     *




(New material underlined)


		
	1.
	Section 2.32 of the PSSP is amended to read as follows:




2.32        Retirement. The term “Retirement” means a termination of employment with an Employer after the Eligible Employee has attained either (i) age 65, or (ii) age 55 with at least 10 Years of Service (as determined in accordance with the Qualified Plan), or an Eligible Employee who was eligible under the Pfizer Voluntary Early Retirement Program or involuntarily terminated under the Special Separation Program under a Company-sponsored severance plan, and who would attain either (i) age 65, or (ii) age 55 with at least 10 Years of Service, if credited with:
(a)    An additional five years of age;
(b)    An additional five Years of Service; or
(c)    A combination (in months) of years of age and Years of Service, which combination does not exceed 60 months.
Hadassa HELINSKI, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Paul Brian HELINSKI, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2001

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 30, 2017

Following review of the petition for writ of certiorari, and the response and reply thereto, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

Upon consideration of petitioner's motion for appellate attorney's fees, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied.

Petitioner's motion to expedite is hereby denied as moot.

SALTER, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the three months ended March 31, 1999 for  Hallwood  Consolidated  Resources
Corporation and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883953
<NAME>                        Hallwood Consolidated Resources Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         181
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,948
<PP&E>                                         342,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                 255,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,546
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       30
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,439
<SALES>                                        8,150
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,175
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,295
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (679)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (717)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (717)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.26)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.5


 





February
28, 2019


 


Baker
Hughes, a GE company, LLC
 


	Attention:	William
    D. Marsh
	Telephone:	(713) 879-1257
	Facsimile:	(713) 439-8472
	Email:	will.marsh@bhge.com










 


Re:
Inclusion of GE Additive in certain exclusivity and confidentiality provisions of that certain Supply and Technology Development
Agreement (the “Agreement”), entered into as of November 13, 2018, by and among General Electric Company, a
New York corporation (“GE”), acting through its GE Aviation business unit and the legal entities operating
on its behalf (“GE Aviation”), Baker Hughes, a GE company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“BHGE”),
and General Electric Company, a New York corporation, on behalf of its GE Power business


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


We
are writing to confirm that the GE Additive business unit of GE Aviation (“GE Additive”) is an Affiliate of
GE Aviation and, consequently, is subject to all of the obligations of GE Aviation’s Affiliates acting on its behalf under
Section 5.02 of the Agreement, whether or not GE Additive is actually acting on GE Aviation’s behalf. In addition,
and for the avoidance of doubt, “Confidential Information” under the Agreement shall include Confidential Information
of GE Additive (whether disclosed by GE Aviation, GE Additive or otherwise), and GE Additive will comply with the confidentiality
provisions of Section 9.08 of the Agreement as and to the same extent as if it were a party thereto.


 


Capitalized
terms used in this letter and not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


[Signature
page follows.]


 




     


     


    

	 	Sincerely,
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, acting through its GE Aviation business unit
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ Shane M. Wright	 
	 	 	Name:	Shane M. Wright	 
	 	 	Title:	CFO-GE Aviation	 



 


 








Acknowledged:


 


BAKER
HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC


 


 


	By	/s/
    Lee Whitley	 
	 	Name:	Lee Whitley	 
	 	Title:	Corporate Secretary
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of Chronimed Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 1, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry, F.
Blissenbach, 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 the best of my 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

                                                        /s/ HENRY F. BLISSENBACH
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Henry F. Blissenbach
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                                        November 5, 2004
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LU REN ZO LEE W I LLI A M S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. S E R V IN , a. k . a. C erv an t es, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 57252 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 -cv -0 0 7 8 9 -C B M -JC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C ons ue l o B . M a r s ha l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a y14, 2013 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T H O M A S , an d M U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rL ur e nz o L e e W i l l i a m s appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary j ud gm enti n h i s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng that de f e nda ntus e d e xc e s s i ve f or c e a ga i ns thi m w hi l e he w a s apr e tr i a l de t a i ne e i n the c ounty j a i l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo a 

# FI LED MA Y21 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 57252 2 d is m is s a l f

o rf a ilu r e to e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . W y at t v . T e rhune , 315 F. 3 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed W i l l i am s’ s a ct i on w i tho utprej ud i ce because W i l l i am s di d n otexhaustthe coun ty j ai l ’ s gri evance proce du re s co n cern i n g h i s cl ai m s. Se e W oodf ord v . N go , 548 U . S . 81, 93- 95 ( 2006) ( e x h au s tio n is m a n d a to rya n d m u s t b e d o n e in atim e lym a n n e rc o n s is te n t w ith pri son p ol i ci es ); P o r te rv . N u s s le , 5 3 4 U .S . 5 1 6 , 5 3 2 (2 0 0 2 ) ( “[T ]h e P L R A ’s exhaust i on re qu i re m entappl i es t o al l i nm at e s ui t s abo utpri son l i fe , w hether they i nvol ve ge ne r a l c i r c um s t a nc e s orpa rt i c ul a re pi s ode s , a nd w he the rthe ya l l e ge e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e o rs o m e o th e rw r o n g .” ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng W i l l i a m s ’ s m ot i ons for app oi ntm entof coun se l because W i l l i am s f ai l ed t o d em on stra t e e xcept i on al c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See P alm erv. V aldez , 560 F . 3d 965, 970 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( s e tt i ng f orth s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w a nd r e qui r e m e ntof “ e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s ” f or appo i ntm entof coun se l ). AF F I RME D.
Clayton WHITE, a/k/a Clayton Adrian White, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4842

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nexity Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated March 16, 2006



By:

/s/ John J. MoranJohn J. MoranExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EX PARTE Brandon Jamal RYLES

1160362 (CR-14-0381)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
# Navy Announces Updated Camp Lejeune Justice Act  Claims Management Portal

### 9 Apr 2024

The improved portal allows individuals not represented by an attorney or individuals through their attorneys to submit new claims, track the status of a claim, securely upload supporting documents, and communicate with Camp Lejeune Claims Unit (CLCU) personnel reviewing their claim.

Individuals who previously submitted a CLJA claim by email or U.S. mail will receive an email from the CLCU when their claim is available for review in the new portal. If no email address was provided on the original claim form, then information will be sent by U.S. mail to the mailing address provided on the original claim form.

Individuals interested in submitting a new CLJA claim should visit the link below to create an account and follow instructions for submitting a new claim.

Individuals represented by an attorney should continue to direct all questions to their attorney and should not create their own account on the portal or file a new claim in the portal.

The CLJA Claims Management Portal is available at https://clclaims.jag.navy.mil. Please note the Department of the Navy will never request a claimant’s personal information by email or over the telephone. Please also note there is no fee to access the portal or to file a CLJA claim and individuals can file without an attorney. The Department of the Navy cannot provide legal advice, including whether you should retain an attorney to assist in filing a claim.

For more information regarding CLJA claim eligibility and answers to other frequently asked questions, please visit the Department of the Navy’s official CLJA website at www.navy.mil/clja or contact the Camp Lejeune Claims Unit at CLClaims@us.navy.mil or (757) 241-6020.
Stephen H. ROSEN, and Stephen H. Rosen, P.A., Appellants, v. NATHAN P. DIAMOND, P.A., Appellee.

No. 3D16-2170

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-05-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-05-1997
<CASH>                                              95
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    81921
<ALLOWANCES>                                       639
<INVENTORY>                                      32445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                115196
<PP&E>                                            9433
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  139462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            60005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                       76897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    139462
<SALES>                                         218584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                218584
<CGS>                                           182545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   182545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   121
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10823
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3896
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6927
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6927
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries

1.  Digital Island, Ltd., incorporated in the United Kingdom

2.  Digital Island, B.V., incorporated in the Netherlands

3.  Digital Island (Europe) SA., incorporated in Switzerland

4.  Digital Island (Hong Kong), Ltd., incorporated in Hong Kong

5.  Digital Island (Japan) KK., incorporated in Japan

6.  Digital Island GmbH

7.  Digital Island  (Sweden) AB

8.  Sandpiper Networks, Inc., a California corporation

9.  Live On Line, Inc., a New York corporation

10. SoftAware, Inc., a California corporation

                                       1