alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carlos Joel PERALTA-BACA, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60522 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 20, 2017

Carlos Joel Peralta-Baca, Pro Se

Nancy Kwang Canter, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, John Darren Williams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carlos Joel Peralta-Baea seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings. Peralta-Baca entered the United States without authorization in February 2004. He was personally served with a Notice to Appear advising him that if he did not attend a removal hearing to be held in June 2004, a removal order could be entered and he could be deported. When he did not attend that June 2004 hearing, he was ordered, *in absentia*to be removed. He was found and deported in 2007, but he returned to the United States illegally a few months later. He later married a United States citizen, and in 2015 he moved to reopen the removal proceedings. The immigration judge (IJ) denied the motion, in part because it was untimely by many years. The BIA dismissed Peralta-Baca’s appeal from that denial.

Peralta-Baca’s contention that the IJ and BIA failed to consider his claim of inadequate written notice lacks arguable merit. It is undisputed that Peralta-Baca received actual, personal notice. He does not explain what more consideration was due, and personal service was adequate. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) (providing for service by mail “if personal service is not practicable”).

In addition, Peralta-Baca contends that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the applicable 180-day limitation period for filing a motion to reopen. He failed to show that his reliance on a non-lawyer’s promise to help him obtain a change of venue con*332stituted exceptional circumstances. Moreover, he failed to show diligence because he failed to move to reopen until the passage of more than 10 years from the date of the removal order and seven years from his actual removal. While equitable tolling is available, in this case it is unwarranted. *See Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch,*831 F.3d 337, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2016).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the decision not to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. Because an IJ or the BIA has complete discretion in this regard, we have no legal standard by which to judge the decision. *See Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions,*866 F.3d 302, 306 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2017).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
#### In the Matter of the Will of Rudolph R. Noll, Deceased. Gerda Noll et al., Petitioners-Appellants. Otto Ruprecht et al., Individually and as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Rudolph R. Noll, Deceased, et al., Respondents. National Surety Corporation et al., Respondents. (2 Proceedings) In the Matter of the Estate of Rudolph R. Noll, Deceased. Eleanors G. Noll, an Infant, by Gerda Noll, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Petitioners-Appellants. Otto Ruprecht et al., Individually and as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Rudolph R. Noll, Deceased, Respondents. Edward A. Pfeffer et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 19, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*910
      *Abraham Fishbein*and *James J. Munro*for appellants.

*Edward A. Pfeffer*for respondents.

Appeals dismissed, without costs, on the ground that the orders do not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
4 Attachments 

Scott, 

 

Attached is the memo we discussed over the phone documenting AECOM’s justification for the use of the 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile as the ambient background for the 1-hour NO2NAAQS modeling in support of the 

PHPP PSD Permit Application. Also attached are the three spreadsheets referred to in the memo containing the 

supporting background data. 

 

Please do not hesitate to call or email with any questions or comments. Please note that we have recently 

moved to a new building so my phone number has changed. 

 

Thank you, 

Richard Hamel

Discussion of Ambient Background Selection for 1-hour NO2 Modeling in support of PHPP 

PSD Permit Application 

Hamel, Richard 

to: 

Scott Bohning 

07/21/2011 12:48 PM 

Cc: 

Shirley Rivera, "Beckham.Lisa@epamail.gov", "Head, Sara" 

Hide Details 

From: "Hamel, Richard" <richard.hamel@aecom.com>

To: Scott Bohning/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Shirley Rivera/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beckham.Lisa@epamail.gov" 

<Beckham.Lisa@epamail.gov>, "Head, Sara" <Sara.Head@aecom.com>

1-hour NO2 Ambient Background Justification for PHPP NAAQS Modeling 072111.pdf PHPP Impacts by Hour.xlsx

2008-2010 Background Data Analysis.xlsx 2008-2010 Daily Max Background Data Analysis.xlsx

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\SRIVER02\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web58... 7/21/2011
Air Quality Meteorologist 

Environment 

D 978.905.2231 

richard.hamel@aecom.com

AECOM

250 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford, MA 01824

T: 978-905-2100, F: 978-905-2101

www.aecom.com

 

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\SRIVER02\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web58... 7/21/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,211,445
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,796,562
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,283,673
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 10,597,834
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,617,688
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,642,524
<LOANS>                                    101,037,774
<ALLOWANCE>                                    660,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             124,095,774
<DEPOSITS>                                  68,829,010
<SHORT-TERM>                                 7,966,667
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,644,553
<LONG-TERM>                                 17,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,610,883
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,044,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             124,095,774
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,155,660
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              289,458
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               357,573
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,802,691
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,538,109
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,047,362
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,755,329
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   90,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,841,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,924,681
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,924,681
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,190,267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.46
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    88,227
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               570,417
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              660,417
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        660,417
        

</TABLE>
#### Clois EATON, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 23628.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1966.

Clois Eaton, pro se.

Alio B. Crow, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., T. B. Wright, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.

Before JONES, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was denied habeas corpus relief from a state court conviction and has appealed. It appears that the appellant is presently serving under a sentence of a different conviction than that from which he seeks relief. It follows, therefore, that there was and is no jurisdiction to consider the petition. The order of the district court will be affirmed without prejudice to the right to seek the relief sought at such time as it would be effective if granted.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, Hanwook Bae, President of MB Tech, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

-    The Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2005 fully complies
     with  the  requirements  of  Section  13 (a)  or 15  (d) of the  Securities
     Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and

-    The information  contained in the quarterly report fairly presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.



Date: April 13, 2006


/s/ Hanwook Bae
--------------------------
Hanwook Bae
President/Director
#### Paul Gordon WHITMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffery DORT, Asst. District Attorney, SD County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55264

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Paul Gordon Whitmore, Pro Se.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Paul Gordon Whitmore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. *947§ 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, *Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Pictures Corp.,*159 F.3d 412, 418 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.

To the extent that success on Whit-more’s due process claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, the district court properly concluded that Whitmore’s action is *Heck-barred*because Whitmore failed to allege facts demonstrating that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. *See Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

To the extent that success on Whit-more’s due process claims would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, dismissal of Whitmore’s due process claims was proper because Whitmore failed to allege facts sufficient to show any cognizable injury. *See Long v. County of Los Angeles,*442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege ... that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated[.]”); *Wright v. Riveland,*219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a procedural due process claim).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             316
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,882
<INVENTORY>                                      3,536
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,143
<PP&E>                                           7,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,095
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,474)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,850
<SALES>                                         18,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,548
<CGS>                                           13,890
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,058
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,952)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,952)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,952)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 3

- 0858

_____________________________
P ERCY L ESTER H ALL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Coleman Lee Robinson , Judge

. February 29, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , B ILBREY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender
, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.
Exhibit 99.8







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos. 333-159215 on Form F-3, 333-163579 on Form-10/A, 333-155538 and 333-113073 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports dated March 7, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Brookfield Properties Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.








/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Independent Registered Chartered Accountants


Licensed Public Accountants


Toronto, Canada


March 30, 2011
Third Amendment to Promissory Note with Reliance Trust Company


 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 February 7, 2012 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

 This Third Amendment to Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is to be effective as of the close of business
March 11, 2012, or as otherwise stated herein. 
 WHEREAS, the undersigned are parties to that certain
Promissory Note (as the same has been and may be hereafter renewed, amended, modified, or extended, the “Note”) dated as of March 12, 2009 in the original amount of $12,910,386.14, made by WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS
(“Weingarten”), a Texas real estate investment trust, and payable to the order of RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee of the Master Nonqualified Plan Trust (“Trust”) under the Weingarten Realty Investors Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (“SERP”) and Weingarten Realty Investors Retirement Benefit Restoration Plan (“Reliance”); and 
 WHEREAS, the scheduled maturity date of the Note is March 12, 2012; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the maturity date under the Note to a date one year from the date of its currently-scheduled maturity; and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Note to reflect this change and desire to memorialize the outstanding balance
due under the Note as of March 11, 2012; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed: 

 

	1.	 The second paragraph of the Note shall be revised to be and read as follows: 



 

	 	“The	 entire unpaid balance of the Note, including accrued interest, shall be due and payable March 12, 2013.” 



 

	2.	 As of the close of business March 11, 2012, the balance due under the Note, including accrued interest, is $12,918,228.26.



 In all other respects, the Note is hereby ratified and confirmed. 

This instrument may be executed by the parties individually or in combination, in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an
original and all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. Individuals authorized to enter into this amendment on behalf of Weingarten are identified on Exhibit A hereto. 

  
 1 







 
			
	 RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Wade Fox

	 Its (Title):
	 	 Sr. Vice President

	 Date:
	 	 February 15, 2012



  

			
	 WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Stephen C. Richter

	 Its (Title):
	 	  

	 Date:
	 	 February 15, 2012




  
 2 







 Exhibit A 
 Individuals Authorized to Enter into the Third Amendment to Promissory Note 
 on
behalf of Weingarten 
 Andrew M. Alexander 
 Stephen C. Richter 

  
 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0335 IN THE MATTER OF: O.K., 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 February 21 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

January 16 2024

01/16/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0335
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Philip Luizzo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Accufacts Pre-Employment
Screening, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date:   March 31, 2005

/S/ PHILIP LUIZZO.
-----------------
Philip Luizzo.

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Candice LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Walter MILLER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-16078

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Candice Lewis, Pro Se, Chowchilla, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Darren Indermill, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Candice Lewis appeals from the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254*928habeas petition. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lewis’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Lewis the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the briefing and record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses that the certified issue provides no basis for appellate relief. *See Graves v. McEwen,*731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

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