alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                          9
                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           422
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         6,342
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               1,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        2
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        60,064
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          59,811
<LOANS>                                       41,420
<ALLOWANCE>                                      226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               111,394
<DEPOSITS>                                    90,852
<SHORT-TERM>                                       0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           10,375
<LONG-TERM>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          65
<OTHER-SE>                                    10,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               111,394
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  786
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,096
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1,882
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               953
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               149
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            780
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      8
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  384
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  2.88
<LOANS-NON>                                        0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     142
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 226
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      0
<RECOVERIES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             226
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### Tenzee LAMA-SHERPA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71198

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 11, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed September 7, 2017

Yagya P. Nepal, Esquire, Law Office of Yagya P. Nepal, San Leandro, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Attorney, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,* Chief District Judge.

*

The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied Petitioner Tenzee Lama-Sherpa’s motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Lama-Sherpa petitions this Court for review of the denial by the BIA, which held that Lama-Sherpa did not satisfy his burden to show the new evidence would likely change the result in his case. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

We review the BIA’s decision to deny a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006). This Court defers to the BIA’s decision to deny reopening unless it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). Aliens who seek to reopen proceedings “bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result.” *Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey,*547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008).

Lama-Sherpa argues an attack on his father by the Maoists is evidence of changed country conditions in Nepal that would lead to a different result in his case. However, “an individual who can relocate safely within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum.” *Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting *INS v. Ventura,*537 *505U.S. 12, 18, 128 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002)). The threats made against Lama-Sherpa and the physical violence against his father occurred in the city of Jiri. Lama-Sherpa left Jiri for Kathmandu, where no violence or threat of violence was made against him. Lama-Sherpa’s parents also moved to and lived in Kathmandu for more than seven years, and they faced no violence or threat of violence there.

Lama-Sherpa provides no evidence that he could not reside unharmed in Kathmandu or elsewhere in Nepal, other than Jiri. There is also no evidence showing a material change in conditions in Nepal since the Immigration Judge’s decision. Therefore, Lama-Sherpa did not meet his burden of proof that the new evidence would change the result in his case, a necessary prerequisite to reopening.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Christine SAMUEL, as Natural Parent and Guardian of CSD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James H. DICKEY; James H. Dickey Law Firm, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 16-2352

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

James. H. Dickey, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Seth Jophlin, BELL LEGAL GROUP, Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellee,

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ, Circuit Judge.*

*

 This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James H. Dickey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting a default judgment against him and denying his two Fed. R. Civ. P, 60(b) motions. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P, 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of .appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 21, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on November 28, 2016. Because Dickey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral *637argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Order entered August 30, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00940
- CR HAZEM AHMED, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006
- 89052
- 2018



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s August 28, 2019 motion to substitute counsel. We GRANT the motion. We DIRECT the Clerk to remove Jacob Robert Jenkins and to list Bruce
Anton a s counsel of record for appellant. All future correspondence should go to Bruce Anton, Udashen Anton, 2311 Cedar Springs Road, Ste. 250, Dallas, TX 75201.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

 

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**ANDEXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Option Care, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission as of the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Rajat Rai, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Paul Mastrapa, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of our knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) that:

 

(1)          This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 9,  2005 | By:    | /s/ Rajat Rai                                       |   |
|------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | Rajat Rai                                           |
|                         |   | Chief Executive Officer &  Director        |
|                         |   |                                                |
|                         |   |                                                |
| Date: November 9,  2005 | By:    | /s/ Paul Mastrapa                                   |   |
|                         |   | Paul Mastrapa                                       |
|                         |   | Senior Vice President  and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In t he i nterest of E.J.V.

, a c hild * From the 70 th District Cour t

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. A

- 3534

- PC

No. 11

- 21

- 00 041

- C V * September 9 , 20 2 1

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes tha t the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-15T11:11:15Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:11:16Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:11:16Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="12665">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-15T11:11:15Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION W o-7497 WAS NEVER ISSUED OK 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT

Report Request ID: 1018569 Report Code: AMP430 Sep. 12, 2012

Selection Criteria Page 1

User ID: KHO

State County City Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA

EPA

Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date

06

06

101

115

GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS

Parameter

Classification Parameter Method Duration

CRITERIA 88101

SELECTED OPTIONS

OZONE EVALUATION

AGENCY ROLE

MERGE PDF FILES

Option Type Option Value

SEASONAL-HOURLY

REPORTING

YES

SORT ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Order Column

EPA_REGION

STATE_CODE

MONITOR_TYPE

COUNTY_CODE

SITE_ID

PARAMETER_CODE

POC

GLOBAL DATES

2012

Start Date End Date

01 12 2012

Tribal

Code
Sep. 12, 2012

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT

Page 1 of 3

MONITORS NOT REPORTING 
Sep. 12, 2012

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT

Page 2 of 3

DATE RANGE: 

REGION: (09) SAN FRANCISCO

California MONITOR TYPE: 

California Air Resources Board

SLAMS

JAN. 01, 2012 THRU DEC. 31, 2012

SITE ID

CITY

ADDRESS

PARAMETER POC DURATION

METHOD

------------------------------- OBSERVATIONS -------------------------------

NUMBER / PERCENT

06-101-0003 88101 PM2.5 - Local Conditions 1 7

Yuba City

773 ALMOND ST, YUBA CITY

118

28

 90%

29

 100%

31

 100%

30

 100%

27

 87%

30

 100%

175

 48%

MONITORS REPORTING 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR

STATE:

REP ORG:
Sep. 12, 2012

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

DATA COMPLETENESS REPORT

Page 3 of 3

DATE RANGE: 

REGION: (09) SAN FRANCISCO

California

MONITOR TYPE: 

California Air Resources Board

SLAMS

JAN. 01, 2012 THRU DEC. 31, 2012

PARAMETER ACTIVE MONITORS # NOT REPORTING # MONITORS > 75% MONITORS AVG COMPLETENESS

88101 PM2.5 - Local Conditions 1 0 0 48.0%

1 0 0 48.0%

1 0 0 48.0%

1 0 0 48.0%

1 0 0 48.0%

1 0 0 48.0%

California Air Resources Board

California

REGION SUMMARY: (09) SAN FRANCISCO

REPORT SUMMARY: 

MT SUMMARY: SLAMS

REPORT SUMMARY

STATE:

STATE SUMMARY: 

REP ORG:

RO SUMMARY:
EXHIBIT 13.2

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 Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A of Wavecom SA (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chantal Bourgeat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of her knowledge and belief:

(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 8, 2005 |  | /s/
        CHANTAL BOURGEAT                                                 
|------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                               |  | Chantal
        Bourgeat,
        Chief Financial Officer,
        Wavecom SA
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Kindrell Monique Sanders

, * From the 238 th District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR35446

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00045

- CR * January 24, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Maria Del Socorro ZERTUCHE-MORENO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72101

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed May 22, 2017

Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Ian Silverberg, Reno, NV, for Petitioner

Kathryn McKinney, Corey Leigh Farrell, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Depart*397ment of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,** District Judge.

*

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

**

**The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Maria Del Socorro Zertuche-Moreno (“Zertuche-Moreno”) petitions for review of a June 13', 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) and review for an abuse of discretion. *Shouchen Yang v. Lynch,*822 F.3d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny Zertuche-Moreno’s petition for review.

Zertuche-Moreno argues that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard and failed to recognize that she presented sufficient evidence to qualify for the changed country conditions exception described in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). We disagree, and conclude that the BIA properly denied Zertuche-Moreno’s motion because she failed to present sufficient evidence to show “changed country conditions” in Mexico and failed to show that the proffered evidence “was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

Several of the exhibits attached to Zer-tuche-Moreno’s motion were published before her hearing and were therefore “available” at that time. *Id.*The remaining exhibits fail to demonstrate a material change in country conditions because, although they include “troubling accounts of violence and kidnaping in Mexico,” *Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,*816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016), they do not show that “circumstances have changed sufficiently [so that Zertuche-Moreno] now has a well-founded fear of future persecution,” *Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Zertuche-Moreno’s motion to reopen.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         188,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               768,083
<PP&E>                                          14,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,085,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,344
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,640
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,453,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,085,211
<SALES>                                         25,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,316
<CGS>                                            1,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,248,538
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,248,538
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,248,538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89
        

</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00289-CV

T. D. J. and E. L. M. II, Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 

NO. C-12-0035-CPS, THE HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant E. L. M. II filed his notice of appeal on May 9, 2013. The appellate 

record was complete May 10, 2013, making appellant’s brief due May 30, 2013. On 

May 30, 2013, counsel for appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.

Recent amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final 

disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 

6.2(a), available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/MiscDocket/12/12903200.pdf

(providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this 

Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order 

counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than June 19, 2013. If the brief is not filed by that date, 

counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on June 4, 2013.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Anthony Furino, Appellant.

Argued February 25, 1943;

decided April 22, 1943.

*Maxim Ingber*for appellant.

*Charles*P. *Sullivan, District Attorney {Henry W. Schoher*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.