alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ulrich SPECK, Appellant v. Brian L. BATES, Anthony O. Ragheb, Joseph M. Stewart, IV, William J. Bourdeau, Brian D. Choules, James D. Purdy, Neal E. Fearnot, Appellees

2016-1879

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 13, 2017

Bryan Patrick Collins, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, McLean, VA, *1011argued for appellant. Also represented by Jack S. Barufka, Robert M. Führer.

Christopher A. Brown, Woodard, Em-hardt, Moriarty, McNett *&*Henry LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellees. Also represented by William Alex McKenna.

(Wallach, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges),

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### De’ Andre STARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gilbarco VEEDER-ROOT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1411

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 24, 2017

Decided: August 4, 2017

De’ Andre Starnes, Appellant Pro Se. James Marion Powell, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE *&*RICE, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*201PER CURIAM:

De’ Andre Starnes appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer. We have reviewed the record and find no, reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Starnes’ motion for leave to file an amended informal brief, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Starnes v. Veeder-Root,*No. 1:15-cv-01002-WO-LPA, 2017 WL 913633 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Woody TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-443

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of W Holding Company, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge, on the date
hereof:

      (a)   the Form 10-K of the Registrant for the Period Ended December 31,
            2004, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
            Registrant.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                              /s/ Freddy Maldonado
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Freddy Maldonado
                                              Chief Financial Officer and
                                              Vice President of Finance
                                              and Investment
                                              March 16, 2005
#### Arturo ALDACO-QUEZADA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-71717

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 17, 2017

FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017

Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Securi*330ty, San Francisco, CA, Karen L. Melnik, Trial, Rebekah Nahas, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KLEINFELD and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and PETERSON,* District Judge.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arturo Aldaco-Quezada petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order ruling him ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition because his assault conviction was for a crime of domestic violence under the modified categorical approach. See Cornejo-Villagrana v. Sessions, No. 13-72185, 870 F.3d 1099, 2017 WL 4051705 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2017).

Aldaco-Quezada pleaded guilty to subsection (A)(1) of the Arizona assault statute, which requires “causing any physical injury to another person.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1203(A)(1). His argument that this statute does not require physical force is unavailing. He relies on the hypothetical from In re Jeremiah T., 212 Ariz. 30, 126 P.3d 177, 179 (2006), used to explain the holding that (A)(3) is not a lesser-included offense within (A)(1), but does not demonstrate “a realistic probability” that the statute is applied in the manner of the hypothetical (charging someone who withheld medication under (A)(1)), see Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). The factual basis for the plea further supports the conclusion that Aldaco-Quezada was convicted of a crime that required the use of violent force. He admitted that he threw keys at his common-law wife, “which hit her and caused a red mark.” His plea also satisfies the mens rea requirement because he pleaded guilty to class 1 misdemeanor assault, which requires acting intentionally or knowingly rather than recklessly or negligently. See Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121, 1130-32 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The domestic relationship requirement is met here because Aldaco-Quezada also pleaded guilty to Arizona’s domestic violence statute. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1203(A)(1).

Because his assault conviction was for a crime of domestic violence, we do not reach the issue of whether his convictions for assault and resisting arrest were for crimes involving moral turpitude.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

The Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MUSTAFA ANSARI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, 

TRAINING AND REHABILITATION; 

SHANNA JUDIE, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23-15718 

D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00561-GMN-NJK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. 

Mustafa Ansari appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his mandamus action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the elements of mandamus are 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 30 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-15718 

satisfied. Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm

on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 

(9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Denial of Ansari’s petition for writ of mandamus was proper because Ansari 

may not seek federal mandamus against a state agency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 

(stating that mandamus relief may be sought against an officer, employee, or 

agency of the United States). Further, Ansari did not demonstrate a clear and 

certain claim to unemployment benefits. See Johnson, 349 F.3d at 1154 (setting 

forth the elements for mandamus relief).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not 

consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Appellees’ motion to expand the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 14) is 

denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.14Base Salaries. The Board of Directors of the Company approved the Compensation Committee’srecommended base salaries for the executive officers listed below (the “Named Executive Officers”)in the amounts indicated, effective January 1, 2005.           Base Salary Last SalaryName Amount (1) Increase DateFrank C. Stipes, Esq. $297,500  November 19, 2001Freddy Maldonado  255,000  September 24, 2001Jose M. Biaggi, Esq.  382,500  July 11, 2005Pedro R Dominguez  177,000  July 11, 2005Ricardo Hernandez, CPA  212,500  July 11, 2005Miguel Vazquez  250,000  June 1, 2001Base salaries for each Named Executive Officer are reviewed by the Compensation Committeefollowing the 18-month anniversary of such Named Executive Officer start date with the Company,with the exception of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Frank C. Stipes, Esq., whosecompensation is reviewed annually.Annual Incentive Awards. The Board of Directors of the Company approved the CompensationCommittee’s recommended annual incentive awards for 2005, payable in cash, to the Named ExecutiveOfficers as follows:       Annual IncentiveName AwardFrank C. Stipes, Esq. $1,229,167 Freddy Maldonado  625,000 Jose M. Biaggi, Esq.  437,500 Pedro R Dominguez  618,750 Ricardo Hernandez, CPA  620,833 Miguel Vazquez  570,833 Annual incentive awards include a Christmas bonus that is granted under Puerto Ricolegislation. The Company has normally granted one month of salary as a Christmas bonus.The Company will provide additional information regarding the compensation of the Named ExecutiveOfficers in its Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. (1) Does not include perquisites and other personal benefits, including an allowance forbusiness and entertainment expenses, which, in the aggregate, exceed$10,000. For information about such perquisites and allowances, seeExecutive Compensation section on the Company’s ProxyStatement for its 2006 annual meeting of shareholders.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6160 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize a lifespan respite 

care program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. MOLINARO (for himself and Mr. CA ́RDENAS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize a 

lifespan respite care program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF LIFESPAN RESPITE 

4 CARE PROGRAM. 

5 Section 2905 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 300ii–4) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 2020 

7 through fiscal year 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2024 

8 through 2028’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6227 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand the tropical 

disease product priority review voucher program to encourage prevention 

and treatment of coccidioidomycosis. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Mr. MCCARTHY, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. SELF, Mr. 

CISCOMANI, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. GALLEGO, Ms. CARAVEO, Mr. COSTA, 

Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. STEEL, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. DE LA CRUZ, and Mr. 

VALADAO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

expand the tropical disease product priority review voucher program to encourage prevention and treatment of 

coccidioidomycosis. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Adding Coccidioidomy5 cosis to the FDA Priority Review Voucher Program Act 

6 of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6227 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING TROPICAL DISEASE PRODUCT PRI2 ORITY REVIEW VOUCHER PROGRAM TO EN3 COURAGE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF 

4 COCCIDIOIDOMYCOSIS. 

5 Section 524(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

6 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360n(a)(3)) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (S) as sub8 paragraph (T); and 

9 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (R) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(S) Coccidioidomycosis.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

          - 49 CFR Part 571

### CFR Correction

This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400 to 571, revised as of October 1, 2021, in § 571.108, remove S5.1 and S5.2.

[FR Doc. 2022-03043 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-D
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellant, v. Juan Jose VILLACORTA, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1051

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 11, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 2, 2018

Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel, and William D. Mueller, for appellant.

Mark Perlman, P.A., and Mark Perlman (Hallandale Beach), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.

LOGUE, J.

JPMorgan Chase Bank appeals the trial court's nonfinal order granting Juan Jose Villacorta's rule 1.540 motion to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure. We reverse and remand for the trial court to reinstate the final judgment of foreclosure because Villacorta's 1.540 motion was duplicative of a prior motion that was previously ruled upon, appealed, and affirmed by this court.

The Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against Villacorta in August 2009. Service of the initial summons was unsuccessful and the Bank's process server could not find any records of Villacorta in the state. The Bank then served Villacorta through publication. In September 2012, the case proceeded to a nonjury trial. Final judgment of mortgage foreclosure was entered for the Bank and the property was sold at a foreclosure sale on November 1, 2012.

Villacorta filed an objection to sale and motion to vacate the final judgment on November 9, 2012. The motion argued in relevant part that the Bank's attempts to serve Villacorta were legally insufficient. The motion to vacate was denied, Villacorta appealed, and this court affirmed. *Villacorta v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.*, 145 So.3d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (table decision).

In April 2017, the trial court heard Villacorta's second motion to vacate. That motion argued in relevant part that "service of process upon Defendant Villacorta was legally insufficient." The trial court granted the motion, concluding that the *885Bank "failed to conduct a diligent search and inquiry in connection with service by publication." The Bank appealed.

"[A] trial court is without legal authority to entertain a second motion for relief from judgment which attempts to relitigate a matter settled by a prior order denying relief." *Adams v. Estate of Henderson*, 155 So.3d 485, 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ; *see also**Crocker Invs., Inc. v. Statesman Life Ins. Co.*, 515 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("Ordinarily, a trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain a second motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, which attempts to relitigate matters settled by a prior order denying relief."). "[I]t is axiomatic that successive motions alleging the same grounds cannot be allowed under rule 1.540 if there is going to be finality to litigation." *Adams*, 155 So.3d at 488 n.3.

Here, Villacorta twice argued the same substantive grounds to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure. Because the trial court denied the first motion alleging insufficient service of process and this court affirmed, the trial court had no legal authority to then grant the second duplicative motion. Accordingly, we reverse.
janice K. Brewer Governor 

# SEP 0

# 2

# 2014 Mr. Jared Blumenfeld Regional Administrator 

## ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF 

## ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1110 West Washington Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 771-2300 • www.azdeq.gov SUBMITTEDVIAEMAILAND FEDEX

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region IX Mail Code: ORA-l 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Henry R. Darwin Director

RE: MAG 2014 State Implementation Plan Revision for the Removal ofStage II Vapor Recovery**C~J** the MaricopaEight-Hour OzoneNonattainmentArea Dear M!)Mtlmenfeld: · Consistentwith the provisions ofthe Arizona RevisedStatues §§ 49-104, 49-106,49-404, 49-406 and 49- 425 (Enclosure 1) and the Code ofFederal Regulations (CPR) Title 40, §§51.105 through 51.104, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the 

### MAG 2014 State Implementation Plan Revisionfor the Removalof Stage II VaporRecovery Controls in the Maricopa Eight-Hour Ozone NonattainmentArea as a revisionto the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). On May 16, 2012, the EPA determined that onboard refueling vapor recovery systems are in widespread use throughoutthe motor vehicle fleet. In accordance with Clean AirAct Section 202(a)(6), EPA waived the requirement for states to implement Stage II gasoline recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities (77 FR 28772). Since Stage II is a duplicative system, this SIP revision requests that EPA remove the requirement for Stage II vapor recovery in this area for new gasoline dispensing facilities beginning in 2014 and.for existing facilities beginning in October 2016, before regional disbenefit begins to occur in 2018. ADEQ requests that EPA approve this revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan. Enclosure 2 contains the SIP Completeness Checklist and Enclosure 3 contains one hard copy and an exact duplicate copy on CD ofthe SIP supplement. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (602) 771-2288. Sincerely,

Air
cc: Michelle Wilson, ArizonaDepartment ofWeights and Measures Lindy Bauer, MaricopaAssociation ofGovernments, w/o enclosures Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region.IX, w/o enclosures
Southern Regional Office 400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 628-6733 Printedon recycledpaper
**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 Annual Report of Luna Technologies International, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Kimberly Landry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.







Date:  March 1, 2006
            /s/
                Kimberly Landry
              Kimberly
                Landry
              Chief
                Executive Officer