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

No. 15-73358

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Reza Athari, Esquire, Attorney, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

Nancy Canter, 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

*247Before: 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 **

Saul Martinez-Santiago, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying voluntary depiar-ture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Ali v. Holder,*637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

To the extent Martinez-Santiago contends the agency erred as a matter of law in determining that he is statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure, this contention fails because he was granted voluntary departure in 2011 after he was found to be inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A). *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229c(c) (voluntary departure is not permitted if the alien was previously permitted to voluntarily depart after having been found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (alien has the burden of proof in establishing eligibility for any requested benefit or privilege); *see also Corro-Barragan v. Holder,*718 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial of voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Santiago’s unexhausted contention that he was not advised that the previous grant of voluntary departure would render him ineligible for voluntary departure in the future. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
#### Namstrad, Incorporated, Appellant, *v.*Olavarria & Co., Inc., Respondent.

Submitted June 7, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*Winthrop H. Kellogg*for motion.

*Irving J. North*opposed.

*924Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion, unless appellant serves and files undertaking on appeal and pays ten dollars costs within thirty days,in which event the motion is denied.
455 A.2d 1238

#### D’Amico, et al. v. Harbor Greene, et al., Appellants.

Reargument Denied March 4, 1983.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied June 7, 1983.

Argued June 17, 1982.

James A. Pitonyak, for appellants; James R. Jenks, for appellees.

Before BROSKY, JOHNSON and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

The decree absolute issued by the lower court by hereby affirmed.
```

[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Notices]               
[Page 51016]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18au10-61]                         

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday September 17, 2010.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-20600 Filed 8-16-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
MEADOWS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PASCO COUNTY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2000

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Mayford Kenneth DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Catherine ZELLERS; Jessica Richard; Justin Holcomb, Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-11201 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 27, 2017

Mayford Kenneth Davis, Jr., Pro Se

James Thomas Jeffrey, Jr., Esq., Law Offices of Jim Jeffrey, Arlington, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mayford Kenneth Davis, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by *Heck v.*Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). His complaint seeks, *inter alia,*damages against the prosecutor and two police-officer witnesses at the trial resulting in his conviction, pursuant to Texas Penal Code § 42.01(a)(10), for indecency arising out of an incident of nude sunbathing at a middle school.

On appeal, however, Davis does not address *Heck.*Instead, he reasserts the merits of his contentions without referencing any specific error by the court. Although *pro se*briefs are liberally construed, even *pro se*litigants must brief contentions in order to preserve, them. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Davis has not identified any error in the court’s analysis and determinations, or even mentioned any possible appellate issues, he has abandoned them. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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: Clovis PRINCE, Debtor Clovis Prince, Appellant v. Michelle Chow; Wayne Stone; Larry Alan Levick; Todd Alan Hoodenpyle; Matthew M. Ryan, Appellees. Clovis Prince Appellant v. Michelle H. Chow, Trustee; Wayne Stone; Matthew M. Ryan, Appellees

No. 16-41158

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 4, 2017

Clovis Prince, Pro Se

Todd Alan Hoodenpyle, Singer *&*Lev-ick, P.C., Addison, TX, for Appellees Michelle Chow, Larry Alan Levick, Todd Alan Hoodenpyle

Stephen Wilson Elliott, Clayton D. Setter, Esq., G. David Bryant, Phillips Mur-rah, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellee Wayne Stone

Stephen Wilson Elliott, Clayton D. Setter, Esq., Phillips Murrah, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellee Matthew M. Ryan

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Clovis Prince moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his consolidated appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders of dismissal entered in two adversary proceedings. He is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Prince’s conclusional assertions of error by the district court, without citation to the record or cogent legal argument, do not show that his appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits and that it is not frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Athough pro se briefs are liberally construed, *Haines v. Kerner,*404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Prince has not shown any error in the dismissal of his consolidated appeals from the bankruptcy court on account of his failure to pay the filing fees. Nor has he shown any error in the district court’s determination that his claims are in essence a collateral attack on the valid and binding summary judgment issued by the bankruptcy court, avoiding the fraudulent transfers of certain real property.

Because the district court did not err in determining that the appeal was not taken in good faith, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202. As Prince’s appeal is without arguable merit, *see Howard,*707 F.2d at 220, it is DISMISSED as frivolous, *see*5th *334Cir. R. 42.2. Prince’s alternative request to withdraw his appeal without prejudice is DENIED. The motion to dismiss, incorporated in the response filed by Wayne Stone and Matthew M. Ryan, is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRST
QUARTER FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 4/30/99 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                             781
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  294,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                    305,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               622,668
<PP&E>                                         113,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 866,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          471,191
<BONDS>                                          2,079
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          194,827
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                     197,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   866,027
<SALES>                                        537,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               655,162
<CGS>                                          489,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  563,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,828)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,618)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,210)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,439)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.24)
        

</TABLE>
D.F., A CHILD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4001

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
OLD CUTLER GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. MICHAEL WEINER M.D. P.A. PROFIT SHARING PLAN, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1033

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 30, 2017

Upon consideration, appellant's motion for rehearing of order dismissing appeal dated October 30, 2017 is hereby denied.

LOGUE, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1



Independent Auditors' Consent

To eCollege.com:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-34326) on Form S-8 of eCollege.com of our report dated January 31, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of eCollege.com as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of eCollege.com.

/s/   KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado

March 27, 2003
Exhibit (3)(i)(b)

                        AMENDED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           BIO VENTURE HOLDINGS, INC.
                              A NEVADA CORPORATION

     Pursuant to the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes, the undersigned
Corporation adopts these articles of amendment to its Articles of Incorporation:

FIRST: ARTICLE I of the Articles of Incorporation as now filed is stricken in
its entirety, and the following Article I substituted therefore as if it had
been part of the original Articles of Incorporation;

                                    ARTICLE I
                                    ---------

     ARTICLE I: The name of the corporation is:

                         MIDWEST VENTURE HOLDINGS, INC.

SECOND: The date of adoption of this amendment by the shareholders of this
corporation is August 12, 2002 and shall become effective upon filing with the
Secretary of State of Nevada.

THIRD: This amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation, has
been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 78.390 and
Section 78.320, Sub. 2 and 3 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. The number of
shares outstanding at the time of adoption of this amendment was 5,505,274; 60%
of the shares entitled to vote executed a Statement of Consent to Action by the
Shareholders of the Company, which was sufficient for passage of the Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, the President and Secretary of the
Corporation, have executed this Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation this
14th day of August, 2002.


                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Wesley Van Dam, President
PINELLAS SUNCOAST FIRE & RESCUE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. EDWARD HOOFNAGLE DISTRICT, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3930

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
January

29, 2010

Subject: Teleconference with Portland Cement Association to discuss HCl emissions data Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Research Triangle Park, NC Date: January

27, 2010 Participants: Portland Cement Association (PCA ) Andy O’Hare, PCA H ector Ybanez, Holcim Curtis L eslie, Ash Grove Mike Pelan, Lafarge Dan Nugent, Buzzi Tim Matz, Lehigh Bob Gunn, National Cement U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Keith Barnett Elineth
RTIInternational Mike Laney

EPA explained that because of i nsufficient data, they are considering issuing a 114 request to selected Portland cement plants to conduct additional HCl testing using method 321. Data are needed for 10

– 20 kilns. EPA would probably issue the request the week of February 1 st . The industry expressed concerns due to the time and cost involved in additional testing as well as the fact that some of the kilns targeted were not operating. The use of data below the detection limit was discussed as well as the distinction between a detection li mit and the practical quantification limit. The problem of testing on monovent baghouses was raised b y PCA. EPA stated that where testing would be difficult, the compan y could test at a different kiln or plant. PCA members will meet to discuss EPA’s HCl data needs and get back to EPA.
##### 



Exhibit 3.01.1
 RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
HOMESTORE, INC.
     ARTICLE I
 Corporation
 ARTICLE II
  ARTICLE III
  ARTICLE IV
  Board of




---



##### 



Directors
 ARTICLE V
 Series A Preferred
 Dividends
 2




---



##### 



Liquidation
 Redemption Operating Agreement NAR Redemption Notice
 3




---



##### 



Voting
 Automatic Conversion
 ARTICLE VI
    4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
  ARTICLE VIII
  ARTICLE IX
  6




---



##### 



rd
 Homestore, Inc.By:
    /s/ Jack D. DennisonName:
    Jack D. DennisonTitle:
    Chief Operating Officer 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FOR 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,604,003
<SECURITIES>                                15,369,461
<RECEIVABLES>                                  682,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,430
<INVENTORY>                                      9,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,062,097
<PP&E>                                       7,059,101
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,046,292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,299,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,961,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,945
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,329,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,299,322
<SALES>                                        259,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,025,179
<CGS>                                        2,225,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,225,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,561,757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,791,779)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,791,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,791,779)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.75)
        

</TABLE>
AFS-12-509-E October 31, 2012 Exemption No. 8844C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26736

Mr. David L. Jones Corporate Aviation Education Director

Aviation Institute of Maintenance

4455 South Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8844, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Technical Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance (Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate V18T077K) for an extension of Exemption No. 8844, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8844, as2

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C.§§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8844, as amended, to February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8844 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8844.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
#### Scott W. GRAVES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GUADALUPE VALLEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-50083

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 1, 2017

Scott W. Graves, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Scott W. Graves moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in appealing *444the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Graves alleged that the defendant provided inadequate medical care in treating him for a gunshot wound to the head and releasing him in the custody of police.

As a threshold matter, this court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in a civil case. *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Graves’s notice of appeal, which we consider filed no earlier than the date he signed it on January 23, 2017, is untimely from the district court’s November 17, 2016, order denying Graves’s motion to amend his complaint. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (a party must file a notice of appeal in a civil case within 30 days of the order or judgment). There is no basis to construe his notice of appeal as a motion for extension óf time'under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). Moreover, his IFP motions are’ not the substantial equivalent of a notice of appeal for purposes of invoking appellate jurisdiction. *See Fischer v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*759 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the motion to appeal IFP is denied is as moot. *See Bowles,*551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *444published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2013
(the Report), I, Joseph Fuda, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, that:

|(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 result of operations
      of the Company.

|Date: February 19, 2014 | /s/
      Joseph Fuda        
|----------------------- | -----------------------------
|                        | Joseph Fuda                  
|                        | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        | (Principal executive officer)

---