alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-72485

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Manuel Rodriguez, Pro Se

OIL, Julia Tyler, Esquire, 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 *309Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo due process contentions, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez’s contentions regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378 because he failed to raise these claims before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rodriguez’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073; *Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of future torture were speculative). Thus, his CAT claim fails.

We reject Rodriguez’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights. *See Lata*v. *INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### In the Matter of Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v Luck Leconte, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 750]

*535In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), entered November 25, 2002, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the issue of whether there was physical contact between the respondent’s vehicle and the alleged “hit-and-run” vehicle.

Physical contact is a prerequisite to the applicability of the uninsured motorist endorsement in the insured’s policy *(see*Insurance Law § 5217; *Matter of Great N. Ins. Co. v Ballinger,*303 AD2d 503, 504 [2003]; *Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Paredes,*289 AD2d 495, 496 [2001]; *Matter of Maryland Cas. Co. v Piasecki,*235 AD2d 423, 424 [1997]; *Matter of Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v Shaw,*222 AD2d 581 [1995]). When there is a triable issue of fact with respect to whether a claimant’s vehicle had physical contact with an alleged “hit-and-run” vehicle, the appropriate procedure is to stay the arbitration pending a determination on that issue *(see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Paredes, supra).*

In support of its petition to stay arbitration, the petitioner submitted a police accident report wherein the respondent told the reporting officer that an unknown vehicle “cut him off.” In opposition to the petition, the respondent offered his affidavit wherein he stated that his car was “suddenly struck on the driver’s side” by an unidentified car which left the scene. Under these circumstances, there is an issue of fact with respect to physical contact, and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on that issue *(see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Paredes, supra; Matter of Maryland Cas. Co. v Piasecki, supra).*Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
EX-10.37





 EXHIBIT 10.37 

FIFTH AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 WESBANCO, INC. KSOP 
 (AS
AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2014) 
 WHEREAS, WesBanco, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the WesBanco, Inc. KSOP,
as amended and restated effective January 1, 2014 (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, Section 12.6 of the Plan reserves to the
Company the right to amend the Plan at any time; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company heretofore has amended the Plan from time to time; and 

WHEREAS, the Company has decided to amend the Plan further to address service credit and eligibility with respect to an acquired group of
employees; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 

	 	1.	 Effective August 20, 2018, new Article 23 is added immediately after Article 22, to read as follows:



 Article 23 

Service Credit for Former Farmers Capital Bank Corporation Employees 

Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, (a) an individual who was formerly employed by Farmers Capital
Bank Corporation (“FCBC”) and its subsidiaries and who becomes an Employee of the Employer on August 20, 2018, as a result of the merger of FCBC with and into the Company (“Former FCBC Employee”), shall receive credit for
his prior service with FCBC such that his date of employment with FCBC shall be treated as his Date of Employment with the Employer for eligibility and vesting purposes under this Plan, and (b) for purposes of Article 3, any Former FCBC
Employee shall become a Participant on August 20, 2018. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fifth Amendment of the Plan is, by the authority of
the Board of Directors of the Company, executed on behalf of the Company this 15th day of August, 2018. 

 

			
	 Wesbanco, Inc.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Todd F. Clossin

		 	Todd F. Clossin, President & CEO


  

	
	ATTEST:
	 /s/ Linda M. Woodfin

	 Linda M. Woodfin, Secretary
Exhibit 32.2



TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Murray D. Rode, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (a) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2005, as filed 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) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 10, 2006



/s/ MURRAY D. RODEMurray D. RodeChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

OF PINNACLE
DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2007

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification
accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.

I, George A. Troutman, certify that, the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

This
certification is executed as of May 11, 2007.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ George A. Troutman 
|Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference on Registration Statement No. 333-140410 on Form S-8 of Cardtrend International, Inc. (formerly Asia Payment Systems, Inc.) of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern, dated June 29, 2007 except for Note 15 and paragraphs 12 and 13 of Note 14, as to which the date is August 15, 2007, included in Cardtrend International, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006.





RBSM LLPRBSM LLP

New York, New YorkAugust 20, 2007

















---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Walter W. Buckley,
III, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Actua Corporation; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2018 |  |  |  |  |  |                           
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Walter W. Buckley, III
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Walter W. Buckley, III    
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
Will B. VERNELUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3463

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, the undersigned, Patrick Goepel, Chief Executive Officer of Asure Software, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and


2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date November 9, 2010
By:
/s/ PATRICK GOEPELPatrick GoepelChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Asure Software, Inc. and will be retained by Asure Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
1 

### In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

___________________ NO
. 09
- 1 2
- 00 464
- C V



### ___________________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.M., J.D.M., AND D.M.M.

_______________________________________________________ ______________ 

### On A ppeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No
. F
- 201,904
- H

________________________________________________________ _____________ 

### ORDER The appellan t filed a motion to transfer a sealed reporter’s record of a proceeding
conducted on April 18, 2012 from the record of a mandamus proceeding arising out of
the same case now on appeal. The appellee did not file an objection to this request

. The appellant requested that addition al items be included in the clerk’s r ecord. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(b). The appellee objected to the inclusion of correspondence from counsel for the appellee and oral and video

- taped depositions that were not on file with the trial court at the time the trial court ruled on the case, but we re filed with the district2 clerk after this appeal had been perfected. In response, the appellant contends the trial court had been present for the depositions and considered them during the hearing. Appe llant’s motion to file the original, sealed rep orter’s record previously filed in original proceeding No. 09

- 12

- 00179

- CV in the record of this appeal is GRANTED. We direct the Clerk of the Court of Appeals to file the original reporter’s record of the hearing in Appeal No. 09

- 12

- 00179

- CV as a suppleme ntal reporter’s record in this appeal. The record shall remain under seal. Appellee’s objection to the inclusion of the depositions in the clerk’s record is
DENIED. T he Court will determine whether a party requested unnecessary items when it takes up the merits of the case and assesses costs on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(b)(3).


### ORDER ENTERED February 7 , 2013.
PER CURIAM

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0282

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Defendant 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 December 15, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 9 2021

11/09/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0282
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, R.Q. WARD, J.A. FISCHER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

EVAN R. TAPIO

MACHINIST'S MATE SECOND CLASS (E

- 5), U.S. NAVY

NMCC A 201400178

GENERAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 20 February 2014

. Military Judge: CDR Michael J. Luken, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid

- Atlantic,

Norfolk, VA

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR S.J. Gawronski,

JAGC, USN

. For Appellant: Maj Emmett Collazo, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller , Esq

.

28 August 2014

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT

---------------------------------------------------

After care ful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

C lerk of Court
**Exhibit 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-130877, 333-127339, 333-71860, 333-71862, 333-93715, 333-93717, 333-89529 and 333-89533)of Too, Inc. of our report dated April 3, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, which appears in thisForm 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers LLPColumbus, Ohio
#### Katherine B. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Dana B. Williams, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, (DOJ/DEA); Virginia Employment Commission, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1036

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Katherine B. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Katherine B. Robinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing on res judica-ta grounds her civil complaint against the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration and the Virginia Employment Commission, and the district court’s order issuing a pre-filing injunction against Robinson for her repeated filing of similar complaints against these Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Robinson’s opening and supplemental informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s dis-positive rulings, Robinson has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s orders. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); *see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. *See Robinson v. DOJ/DEA,*No. 8:16-cv-03850-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2016 *&*Jan. 3, 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*
##### 



Exhibit 99.5
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Brookfield Properties Corporation;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 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)
    
    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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the 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 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 (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/ Craig J. LaurieCraig J. LaurieSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-10-00267-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: UNIT TEXAS DRILLING, L.L.C, UNIT DRILLING COMPANY,

AND CLIFF WELKER

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relators, Unit Texas Drilling, L.L.C., Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker, filed

a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on May 5, 2010. On May 6, 2010, the

Court requested that the real parties in interest, Caesar Morales and his wife, Rhonda

Morales, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, and such response was duly

filed on May 24, 2010. On June 4, 2010, relators filed an amended reply in further support

of their petition. On June 7, 2010, this Court granted relators’ “Unopposed Motion to
2

Consolidate and Stay the Interlocutory Appeal Deadlines” in this cause and the related

appeal pending in cause number 13-10-00247-CV. 

Mandamus is an “extraordinary” remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d

619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); see In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257,

259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). In order to obtain mandamus relief, the relator must

show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate

remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004)

(orig. proceeding); see In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. 2008)

(orig. proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response, and the reply thereto, is of the opinion that relators have not shown

themselves entitled to the relief sought in the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.016 (Vernon Supp. 2009) (allowing for interlocutory appeal

of a matter subject to the Federal Arbitration Act to the same extent as allowed under

federal law). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

6th day of July, 2010.