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

No. 16-70396

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

James Gun Kim, Attorney, JK Law Group, Norwalk, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Melissa Lynn Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Edras Naun Cruz-Montoya, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of. discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. *Ahmed v.*
      *401
      *Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cruz-Montoya’s motion for a continuance for lack of good cause. *See 8*C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); *Ahmed,*569 F.3d at 1012 (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct).

The record does not support Cruz-Montoya’s contention that the BIA ignored his arguments and failed to analyze relevant factors. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA must “merely ... announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF S.C.

NO. 2017-CK-2052

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 25, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
      T. Hawker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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: November
                3, 2005
            By/s/
                Thomas T. HawkerThomas
                T. HawkerPresident
                andChief
                Executive Officer


Return
      to Form
      10-Q
Tanisha E. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-2, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4011

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to the Employment Agreement (this
“Amendment”) is effective as of May 8, 2012 and concerns the Employment Agreement entered into on June 9, 2011 (the “Agreement”), by and between Charles V. Bergh (“Executive”) and Levi Strauss & Co.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”). This Amendment is entered into to make certain clarifications to the Agreement to reflect the intent of both parties hereto. All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. 
  

	1.	Section 4 of the First Part of the Agreement entitled “Term of Employment, Duties and Scope, Compensation and Benefits during Employment, Relocation
Benefits” shall be replaced in its entirety by the following: 

 Section 4. Annual Incentive
Compensation  
 During the Term, the Corporation shall award Executive an annual cash incentive compensation opportunity
under its Annual Incentive Plan (or any successor plan) (“AIP”) having a target amount equal to 135% of the Base Compensation (“Target AIP”) and shall be payable at the Target AIP or such lesser or greater amount as
is provided under the AIP in accordance with Executive’s achievement of the performance measures and levels in effect for the Corporation’s applicable fiscal year, including, without limitation, achievement of individual performance
measures and application of Corporation discretion with respect to awards under the AIP. Such Target AIP shall be subject to review and adjustment (up or down) in a manner that is consistent with the other members of the executive team and in making
such adjustments the Corporation shall consider competitive benchmarks to relevant peer companies. Performance measures and levels with respect to the AIP shall be determined by the Board of Directors or the Human Resources Committee thereof, in its
sole discretion, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the AIP; provided, however, that, in respect of the 2011 fiscal year, Executive shall be paid annual cash incentive compensation in an amount that is not less than 100% of the Target
AIP, which shall be prorated in accordance with the fraction, the numerator of which is the number of days Executive was employed by the Corporation in the 2011 fiscal year and the denominator of which is 365. 

 

	2.	This constitutes the entire Amendment to the Agreement between the parties. Except as expressly amended hereby, all terms and conditions contained in the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect. 


  
 1 








 In WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has caused this Amendment to be duly authorized and signed.

  

			
	Levi Strauss & Co.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Greg B. Holmes
		
	Name:	 	Greg Holmes
		
	Title:	 	VP, Global Rewards COE & HR Services
	
	Charles V. Bergh
		
	By:	 	/s/ Charles V. Bergh


  
 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q ), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
 Date: November 8, 2006
    
    /s/ Thomas G. WiggansThomas G. WiggansChairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer
#### Jimmy L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STATE WIDE CLAIM SERVICE; Fort Worth Transportation Authority; Michelle Denise Price: Phillip Hernandez, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-11314 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 31, 2017

Jimmy L. Williams, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jimmy L. Williams, Texas prisoner # 01904141 appeals the dismissal of his civil negligence action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Williams alleged that, prior to his incarceration, he suffered injuries while he was a passenger on a bus that was involved in a traffic accident.

The burden is on Williams to show federal jurisdiction. *See Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp.,*945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991). He alleges diversity jurisdiction, but there is no diversity between Williams and any of the defendants, because all of the parties are citizens of Texas. *See*28 Ü.S.C. § 1332; *Owen Equip. and Erect. Co. v.*
      *430
      *Kroger,*437 U.S. 365, 373, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978) (noting that § 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship). Neither Williams nor the record shows any other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Williams’s motion for appointment of counsel 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

A)    Westernbank Puerto Rico - an insured non-member commercial bank organized
and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

      Subsidiaries of Westernbank Puerto Rico:

      1.    Westernbank World Plaza, Inc. - incorporated under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, for the purpose of owning, developing, managing and
operating a 23-story office building, including its related parking facility,
located in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.

      2.    SRG Net, Inc. - incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, for the operation of an electronic funds transfer network.

      3.    Westernbank International Bank Corp. (Inactive) - an international
banking entity incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
to carry commercial banking and related services, and treasury and investment
activities outside of Puerto Rico.

B)    Westernbank Insurance Corp. - a registered insurance agency organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

C)    Westernbank Securities, Inc. (Inactive) - a registered securities
broker-dealer incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
No. 01-14-00648-CV 		

In the First Court of Appeals 

Houston, Texas 

HOWARD WAKEFIELD III and BARRETT 

WAKEFIELD , Appellants,

v. 

SAM AYERS AND CLAUDIA AYERS, Appellees. 

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris 

County, Texas 

Cause No. 1007580-002 

		

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO FILE 

APPELANT "Howard Wakefield III" BRIEF

		

TO	THE	HONORABLE	FIRST	COURT	OF	APPEALS:	

Pursuant	to	TEX.	R.	APP.	P.	10.5(b)	and	38.6(d),	Appellees,	

SAM	AYERS	AND	CLAUDIA	AYERS,	respecMully	request	

addiQonal	Qme	to	file	their	Appellees’	Brief	in	response	to	

the	Brief	of	Appellant,	Introduc)on	

1.	Appellants	are	BarreW	Wakefield	and	Howard	Wakefield	

III.	Appellees	

are	Sam	Ayers	and	Claudia	Ayers.	

2.	Appellant	Howard	Wakefield	seeks	an	extension	

to	file	his	Appellants’	Brief	in	response	to	the	Brief	of	

Appellees	

Sam	and	Claudia	Ayers	

ACCEPTED

01-14-00648-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/3/2015 10:54:42 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/3/2015 10:54:42 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
3.	This	is	Appellants’	request	for	an	extension	of	Qme	to	file	

their	Appellants’	Brief.	

Grounds	for	Mo)on	

Currently	I	am	right	in	the	middle	of	Chapter	11	reorganizaQon	with	ThinAir	

Wireless	Inc.	and	due	to	all	of	the	happenings	with	this	case,	an	extension	would	

help	also	facilitate	for	me	to	potenQally	have	the	resources	to	hire	an	aWorney	to	

represent	me	in	this	parQcular	case.		Recently	I	did	have	a	legal	opinion	leWer	

completed	which	I	am	aWaching	that	will	be	part	of	the	brief	if	indeed	an	

extension	is	hopefully	granted.		AddiQonally,	I	just	received	the	Appellees	brief	

and	would	like	the	opportunity	to	respond	to	it	as	well.

		

Respectfully submitted, 

		

By: Howard Wakefield, 

appellant represented pro se (currently) February 2, 2015
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-771-772 and 775 (Fourth Review)]

## Determinations

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel wire rod from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted these reviews on July 1, 2021 (86 FR 35124) and determined on October 4, 2021, that it would conduct expedited reviews (86 FR 72994, December 23, 2021).

                    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on February 10, 2022. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5279 (February 2022), entitled                     *Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-771-772, and 775 (Fourth Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 10, 2022.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2022-03289 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of--

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Inc. 

Under Contract No. NAS8-0 1140 et al. 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 58307, 58805 

Terry L. Albertson, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. 

The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 13 January 2014 

C~YL L. SCOTT 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 58307, 58805, Appeals of Pratt & 

Whitney Rocketdyne, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
First Amendment to Agreement to License by and between NAI andCompound Solutions



 Exhibit 10.33 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 AGREEMENT TO LICENSE 

This First Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Agreement to License by and between Natural Alternatives
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“NAI”), and Compound Solutions, Inc., a California corporation (“CSI”), dated effective as of July 1, 2011 (“Agreement”), is made and entered into effective as of
January 6, 2012 (“Effective Date”). Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement. 
 1. The License Agreement attached to the Agreement as Exhibit B is hereby replaced in its entirety with the License Agreement attached hereto. 

2. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered
shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one instrument. Delivery by facsimile or other electronic means of an executed counterpart hereof shall have the same force and effect as delivery of an originally executed
counterpart hereof. 
 [Signatures on following page.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the
Effective Date. 
  

	
	NAI
	
	Natural Alternatives International, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
	
	 /s/ Mark A. LeDoux

	Mark A. LeDoux, Chief Executive Officer
	
	CSI
	
	Compound Solutions, Inc.,
a California corporation
	
	 /s/ Matt Titlow

	Matt Titlow, Chief Executive Officer
TYPE:  EX-23.2


DAVID E. COFFEY      3651 Lindell Rd. - Suite H    Las Vegas, NV  89103
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified Public Accountant          (702) 871-3979



U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington D.C. 20549

                                                   March 17, 2000

Reference: eClic, Inc.
SEC CIK:  0001085596


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of David Coffey, Certified Public Accountant has reviewed
the statements made in Form 8-K, dated March 15, 2000, Item 4.  Changes in
Registrant's Certifying Accountant.  The statements made are accurate and
correct.

Professionally,


/s/ David Coffey, CPA
--------------------------
David Coffey CPA


<PAGE>
#### Patrick Green, Respondent, v. John A. Kennedy, Appellant.

(Argued May 10, 1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

Action for assault and battery and false imprisonment.

Plaintiff was arrested by a police officer of the eighth ward station-house in the city of Hew York, for passing liquor to *654a prisoner; was taken to the office of defendant, who was general superintendent of the police department. Defendant directed the officer to take the prisoner back and lock him up. He was imprisoned eight days, and then released on habeas corpus. Two witnesses testified to offers of bail and defendant’s refusal to accept it. The charge of assault and battery related to the original arrest.

Defendant moved to dismiss complaint: 1st. So far as the charge of assault and battery was concerned, on the ground that it did not appear that he authorized or ratified it, or in any manner was cognizant of it. 2d. So far as the charge for the original arrest was concerned, upon the same grounds. The motion was denied. The judge charged that the original arrest was lawful, and that the wrong, if any, commenced after plaintiff was taken to defendant. The judge charged that it was the duty of defendant to have ordered plaintiff to be taken immediately before a magistrate; that if he ordered him imprisoned he was liable, with the exception that he might have ordered him detained until he could be taken before the nearest magistrate; also, that if the jury was satisfied, from the evidence of the two witnesses, that they made known to defendant the fact that plaintiff was still incarcerated, it increased the aggravation of the offence. *Held,*no error; that the charge of the judge was in effect a compliance with the request as to the assault and battery, as it excluded from the consideration of the jury the original arrest, and all that was done prior to plaintiff being taken to defendant; that it w;as the duty of the officer making the arrest to convey the prisoner immediately before the nearest magistrate; and that when defendant, whether with or without authority, gave any directions in the matter, it was his duty to have directed a compliance with, not a violation of, the statute; and that knowledge of the continuance of the confinement was an aggravation of the offence.

*A. J. Ycmderpoel*for the appellants.

*8. Horsford*for the respondent.

*655Lott, Ck. C., reads for affirmance.

All concur, except Leonabd, not sitting. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41054 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RENE CAVAZOS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-96-CR-99-01

- - - - - - - - - - November 7, 1997 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rene Cavazos appeals his convictions for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense and for conspiracy to use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense. Cavazos contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for continuance, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.No. 96-41054 -2- We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that there was sufficient evidence to support Cavazos’ convictions. A reasonable jury could have found the elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Pineda-Ortuno , 952 F.2d 98, 102 (5th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Speer , 30 F.3d 605, 612 (5th Cir. 1994). We further hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cavazos’ motion for continuance. See United States v. Scott , 48 F.3d 1389, 1393 (5th Cir. 1995). Cavazos also has not shown that he was prejudiced by the denial of his motion since he has not shown that the polygraph test results would have been admissible at trial. See id. ; see also United States v. Pettigrew , 77 F.3d 1500, 1515 (5th Cir. 1996). Finally, we decline to address Cavazos’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Although Cavazos’ general allegations of ineffective assistance in his motion for new trial were addressed by the district court at sentencing, the specific allegations raised on appeal were not presented to the district court. See United States v. Andrews , 22 F.3d 1328, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.