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

No. 15-72159

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Ann M. Welhaf, 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

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Flores Roldan, 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 finding him removable and denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and claims of constitutional violations. *Martinez-Medina v. Holder,*673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Flores Roldan’s motion to suppress and terminate, where he did not demonstrate that the evidence in his Form 1-213 or any evidence of his alienage was obtained through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. *See Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey,*536 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008) (a Fourth Amendment violation is egregious if evidence is obtained by a deliberate violation of the Fourth Amendment, or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known is in violation of the Constitution).

The agency did not err by admitting evidence of alienage, including the Form I-213, where the documents submitted were probative and their admission was fundamentally fair. *See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,*339 F.3d 814, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).

Contrary to Flores Roldan’s contention, he was not entitled to confront the preparer of the Form 1-213 in court. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); *Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995) (a Form 1-213 is presumptively reliable, and “absen[t] .., evidence to the contrary presented by the alien,” there is no right to confront the form’s preparer).

Finally, Flores Roldan’s contentions that the BIA overlooked evidence, failed to address all issues raised on appeal, misapplied the law, and did not sufficiently articulate its analysis are not supported by the record. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not *450“write an exegesis on every contention” (internal 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.
#### John Hooper, App'lt, v. The Johnstown, Gloversville, etc., Horse R. R. Co., Resp’t.

*Barnwell Rhett Heyward,*for app’lt; *Matthew Hale,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J , absent.

Affirming 35 N. Y. State Rep., 503.
Addendum to Termination Agreement


 


IT IS THEREFORE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:


 


1. VH will pay to the nominee of P (being J
Harris) the sum of US$ 32 000.00 as follows:


 


		1.	$ 5 000 on signature;



		2.	$ 3 000 each month on the first day thereof, the first payment due
on or before 1 June 2012, until the whole amount is paid in full.



 


2. Such payment once made will be in full and
final settlement of all civil claims between the parties.


 


3. The settlement includes non-disparagement,
non-disclosure of information, non-circumvention and confidentiality provision concerning all the other parties to this agreement,
and/or any information pertaining to them acquired during the course of this agreement concerning any party, relating to anything
concerning the other parties hereto, which obligation may only be lifted for statutory and related legal requirements to allow
VH to comply with the required SEC statutory filings, and then only strictly for such purposes only.


 


4. Neither party shall be obliged to attend
any sessions with a mediator or Counsel/or.


 


 


 


	SIGNED AT CAPE TOWN ON THE	DAY OF MAY 2012
	
         

        /s/ JOHN HARRIS
	
         

        15 MAY 2012

	JOHN HARRIS (Personally and for and on behalf of PENINSULA HOLDINGS LTD.
	
        Address:

        (Who warrants by his signature above that he
        is authorized to sign its/their behalf)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1771. RODERICK JACKSON v. THE STATE.

In 2012, Roderick Jackson pled guilty to two counts of cruelty to children in

the first degree and one count of cruelty to children in the second degree. He

subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and, following a hearing, the

trial judge orally denied Jackson’s motion in November 2012. On March 22, 2019,

Jackson filed a pro se Notice of Appeal, appealing “the decision made during an

open-ended guilty plea” in January 2012. We lack jurisdiction.

OCGA § 5-6-38 (a) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days of

the order sought to be appealed. The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is

an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Henderson v. State, 265

Ga. 317, 317 (1) (454 SE2d 458) (1995). Here, Jackson apparently seeks to appeal the

2012 sentence entered following his guilty plea. We, however, lack jurisdiction to

consider a direct appeal from that disposition order. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). We

likewise lack jurisdiction to consider any appeal from the denial of Jackson’s motion

to withdraw his guilty plea. In his notice of appeal, Jackson specifies that certain

records be transmitted to this Court. These records do not include the stamped “filed”

court order denying the motion to withdraw his plea or any documentfiled after 2012.

Given the absence of a trial court order entered within 30 days of Jackson’s Notice

of Appeal, we have nothing to review. See Amica v. State, 307 Ga. App. 276, 282 (2)

(704 SE2d 831) (2010). 

July 03, 2019
Based on the designated record transmitted to this Court, Jackson’s appeal is

untimely and is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/03/2019
ALASKAN SEAFOOD

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00409cbi

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Filed May 8, 1891.

#### The DeWitt Wire Cloth Co., Resp’t, v. The N. J. Wire Cloth Co., App’lt.

Appeal from judgment of this court.

Judgment affirmed, with leave to defendant to answer upon payment of costs to date.
#### Manuel Antonio ASTETE-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-73081

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Manuel Antonio Astete-Diaz, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Edward C. Durant, Oil, Claire Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Qhief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

**

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

MEMORANDUM *

Manuel Antonio Astete-Diaz, a native and citizen of Chile, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Astete-Diaz’s challenges to the BIA’s April 2012 order denying his due process claims re*549garding a continuance and asylum relief, where this petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); *Rizo v. Lynch,*810 F.3d 688, 691 (9th Cir. 2016) (a BIA order remanding solely for voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of removal).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

*

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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6625 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report about the effects 

on national security of the surveillance conducted by the People’s Republic of China via the high-altitude surveillance balloon shot down in the 

airspace of the United States in February 2023, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. FRY (for himself, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. DUNCAN, 

Ms. HAGEMAN, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. TIMMONS, 

Mr. ROSE, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. 

MOYLAN, Mr. LANGWORTHY, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. BIGGS, and Mr. POSEY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report about 

the effects on national security of the surveillance conducted by the People’s Republic of China via the highaltitude surveillance balloon shot down in the airspace 

of the United States in February 2023, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6625 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chinese Spy Balloon 

3 Assessment Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORT ON THE EFFECTS ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

5 OF CERTAIN SURVEILLANCE CONDUCTED BY 

6 THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. 

7 (a) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, 

9 in consultation with the President, shall submit to the 

10 Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

11 House of Representatives a report about the effects on na12 tional security of surveillance conducted by the People’s 

13 Republic of China via the high-altitude surveillance bal14 loon shot down in the airspace of the United States in 

15 February 2023, including— 

16 (1) a description of any such effects on military 

17 installations; and 

18 (2) an analysis of any technology and materials 

19 recovered from the high-altitude surveillance balloon, 

20 including each country of origin of such technology 

21 and materials, if a country of origin can be deter22 mined. 

23 (b) FORM.—The report required under this section 

24 shall be submitted in an unclassified form, but may in25 clude a classified annex. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6625 IH

1 (c) MILITARY INSTALLATION DEFINED.—In this sec2 tion, the term ‘‘military installation’’ has the meaning 

3 given such term in section 2801 of title 10, United States 

4 Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Second Division.

Filed June 2, 1891.

#### Emma A. De Vinney, App'lt, *v.*Hannah M. Corey *et al.,*Resp’ts.

*Johnson & Charles,*for app’lt; *M. E. & E. M. Bartlett,*for resp’ts.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute rendered against appellant, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 23 N. Y. State Rep., 308.
#### IN KYUNG PAK, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73074

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Brian David Lerner, Christopher Allan Reed, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner

Nehal Kamani, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In Kyung Pak, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration *497judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; *Monroy v. Lynch,*821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that petitioner did not raise a reviewable issue because “he simply disagrees with the agency’s weighing of his positive equities and the negative factors”).

Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, Pak’s contentions that the agency failed to consider or properly analyze relevant evidence, or apply the correct legal standard are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 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 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K
OF TRIARC CONSUMER PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001086090
<NAME>                        TRIARC CONSUMER PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                   US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          60,173
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,641
<INVENTORY>                                     61,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               222,169
<PP&E>                                          54,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 828,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          190,455
<BONDS>                                        736,866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (173,885)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   828,215
<SALES>                                        770,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               853,972
<CGS>                                          407,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  407,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,416
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (21,672)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,478
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (11,772)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,706
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George GERALDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30212

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Tara Elliott, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

George Geraldo, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

George Geraldo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 132-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Geral-*439do’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 considered Geraldo’s pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Geraldo’s conviction. We accordingly affirm Geraldo’s conviction.

Geraldo waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss Geraldo’s appeal as to his sentence. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED 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.
# Eiropas Savienības C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0952
  doi:10.3000/19770952.CA2014.019.lav |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 19A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 57. sējums2014. gada 22. janvāris |

ISSN 1977-0952

doi:10.3000/19770952.CA2014.019.lav

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 19A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

57. sējums2014. gada 22. janvāris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Atzinumi |
| | ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS |
| | Eiropas Zāļu aģentūra |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Paziņojums par atcelšanu | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

V   Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas Zāļu aģentūra

2014/C 019A/01

Paziņojums par atcelšanu

1

ATSKAITE PAR OFICIĀLĀ VĒSTNEŠA C A SĒRIJU KONKURSI

Lūdzu, skatīt sarakstu ar C A sērijas izdevumiem, kas publicēti šā gada laikā.

Ja nav norādīts citādi, Oficiālo Vēstnesi izdod visās valodu versijās.

Oficiālo Vēstnesi

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

V Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas Zāļu aģentūra

| 22.1.2014 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 19/1

---

Paziņojums par atcelšanu

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Eiropas Zāļu aģentūra ir nolēmusi atcelt šādas atlases procedūras:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: līgumdarbinieks (īstermiņa līgums), zinātniskais atbalsts Eiropas veterināro antibakteriālo līdzekļu patēriņa uzraudzības projektam (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: līgumdarbinieks (īstermiņa līgums), zinātniskais atbalsts Eiropas veterināro antibakteriālo līdzekļu patēriņa uzraudzības projektam (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1),

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: līgumdarbinieks (īstermiņa līgums), zinātniskais sekretariāts Eiropas Komisijas atzinumu izstrādei antibakteriālās rezistences jautājumos, Veterināro zāļu nodaļa (FG IV) (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: līgumdarbinieks (īstermiņa līgums), zinātniskais sekretariāts Eiropas Komisijas atzinumu izstrādei antibakteriālās rezistences jautājumos, Veterināro zāļu nodaļa (FG IV) (2).

---

(1)  OV C 320 A, 6.11.2013., 2. lpp.

(2)  Skatīt 1. zemsvītras piezīmi.

---
#### Solomon Haskell Junior *versus*Enoch Moody *et al.*

In an action *qui tam*the declaration must conclude with *contra formam statuti,*or something equivalent; it is not sufficient to say an action hath accrued to the plaintiff* *(f*by force of laws and acts aforesaid.”

This was a *qui tam*action brought by the captain of a militia company against the selectmen of Newbury, to recover the penalty of $ 50 for not paying over to the plaintiff a proportion of $ 3000 paid by conditional exempts to the treasurer of New-bury, to be appropriated according to law. The action was founded on *St.*1822, c. 102, § 7. The declaration recited the title and some of the provisions of that act, in which a previous statute is referred to, and after divers allegations, averred that the defendants had refused to appropriate or pay the money “ for the benefit of said company and agreeable to laws in such case made and provided : whereby the said defendants, by force of laws in such case made and provided, have forfeited the sum, &c. for having neglected and refused to appropriate the said sums, &c. as by laws in such case made and provided they were required to do ; and an action hath accrued to the plaintiff by force of laws and acts aforesaid,” &c.

The defendants demurred to this declaration, assigning for cause, “ that the supposed offence is not an offence at common law and is not alleged to have been done or committed against the form of any statute or statutes of this Commonwealth or against any statute or statutes of the United States.”

*Gerrish,*in support of the demurrer,

cited *Nichols*v. *Squire,*5 Pick. 168 ; *Lee*v. *Clarke,*2 East, 33.

*Marston, contra,*

referred to Amer. Prec. Deck 339, *no.*3 and 5 ; and *p.*340, *no.*6 and note ; and *p.*345, *no.*15 ; 1 Chit. Pl. 360.

At a subsequent day of this term the *Court*said that the declaration was bad in not concluding *contra formam statuti*or with any thing equivalent.1

1

 See *Cross*v. *U. States,*l Gallison, 26; *Sears*v. *U. States,*1 Gallison, 257; *Smith*v. *U. States,*1 Gallison, 261; *Scroter*v. *Harrington,*1 Hawks, 192; *Barkhamsted v. Parsons,*3 Connect. R. 1; *Barter*v. *Martin,*5 Green-*166leaf, 76; *Reed*v. *Northfield,*13 Pick. 94; Revised Stat. c. 100, § 20, 21; c. 137, § 14; *Commonwealth*v. *Moore,*3 Pick. 197; *Read*v. *Chelmsford,*16 Pick. 131,132.