alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HARRY L. DANTZLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-01-331) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harry L. Dantzler, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Barton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Harry L. Dantzler appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend the complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Dantzler , No. CR-01-331 (D.S.C. June 24, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### MELEI of Taputimu & PAUGA of Vailoa, Plaintiffs v. MOLIMALE of Taputimu, Defendant

No. 3-1925

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Matai Name: “Lepule”]

May 23, 1929

JAMES W. FOXALL, LUTU, and PELE, *Judges*

To try the right of Molimala to register Matai Name “Lepule”

JUDGMENT

The above case came on to be heard before the High Court with Judges Foxall, Lutu and Pele sitting, at Ili’ili, Tutuila, American Samoa, at 10:30 A.M. of May 23, 1929.

The Court inquired as to whether or not the parties to the controversy had been able to reach an agreement as to who should hold the Matai Name “Lepule”.

*420Melei, representing himself and Panga, and Molimale, representing himself, both requested the Court to dismiss the case without decision.

It is therefore adjudged and decreed that the within case, to determine the right of Molimala of Taputimu to register the Matai Name “Lepule,” be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
#### In the Matter of New York State Labor Relations Board, Respondent, against Toffenetti Restaurant Company, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*Morris Teitelbaum*for motion for leave to appeal and in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal.

*William E. Grady, Jr.,*and *Daniel Kornblum*for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to motion for leave to appeal.

Motion for leave to appeal denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, and appeal dismissed with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, on the ground that no question under the Constitution of the State of New York or under the Constitution of the United States is involved.
#### Victorio Delfino BARRIOS BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73410

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

*503Judith Leslie Wood, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Judith L. Wood, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner

Brett F. Kinney, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *503*See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Victorio Delfino Barrios Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Sembiring v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion' in denying Barrios Barrios’ motion to reopen based on lack of notice where the record establishes that he was personally served with an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and Notice of Hearing, written in both English and Spanish. There was no statutory requirement that the OSC be orally translated. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)-(3) (1996);

*Khan v. Ashcroft,*374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir. 2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Barrios Barrios’ unexhausted contentions regarding irregularities in the OSC’s Certificate of Translation and Oral Notice. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider contentions not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrios Barrios’ motion to reopen to apply for asylum and related relief, where he filed it more than 17 years after the applicable deadline, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he did not demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the deadline for filing motions to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003,23(b)(4)(i).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Barrios Barrios’ remaining contentions regarding membership in a particular social group or eligibility for relief.

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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00125-CV

Jimmy Ray Sepeda and Hortencia Sepeda, Appellants

v.

Madison Revolving Trust 2017; Robert D. Campbell,

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; and Shapiro Schwartz, LLP, Appellees

FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

NO. 1051-21, THE HONORABLE CARSON TALMADGE CAMPBELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellants’ brief on appeal was originally due June 26, 2020. On appellants’

motion, the time for filing was extended to August 26, 2020. Appellants have now filed a second 

motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellants’ brief. We grant the 

motion for extension of time and order appellants to file a brief no later than October 19, 2020.

No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order may result in 

dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on October 2, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Kelly
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco PEC-SON Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4390

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 6, 2017

Filed: July 14, 2017

Daniel C. Tvedt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Pec-Son, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Pec-Son appeals following imposition of sentence upon his guilty plea to unlawful use of identification documents and misuse of a social security number. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), argues that the district court1 committed plain procedural error by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence that the court imposed on Pec-Son. After careful review, we conclude that no plain procedural error occurred. See United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 670-71 (8th Cir, 2016) (if defendant fails to object to adequacy of district court’s explanation for sentence, this court reviews for plain error); United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (explanation is sufficient if record as a whole demonstrates that court considered relevant factors). Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv-olous issues.

The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Linda R, Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
EX-35 (b)
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

MSM 2006-15XS


I, Michael De Francesco, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:


1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable
portion thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable
servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement
in all material respects throughout such period.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Agreement.

Date: February 28, 2007




/s/ Michael De Francesco
Michael De Francesco
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
Amendment to Mark D. Engstrom Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.7 
 AMENDMENT 
 to 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is dated as of May 16, 2012, by and between Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the
“Corporation”), and Mark D. Engstrom (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Executive is
currently employed by the Corporation pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2009 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2012, and the Corporation and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement, as provided herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the Employment Period (as defined therein) shall be extended for one (1) additional year so that the Employment Period, subject to
early termination pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement, shall conclude on June 30, 2013. 
 2. Section 5 of the
Agreement is hereby amended to delete the section entitled “Participation - Equity Interest” in its entirety. 
 3. Section 8 of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that (a) the “Release” referred to in such section must be executed by the Executive within 45 days after the
Executive’s Date of Termination (as defined therein) and must not be revoked by the Executive within any revocation period provided by applicable law, (b) if the Executive is entitled to receive cash severance pursuant to such section,
such severance shall be paid in a lump sum on the sixtieth (60th) day following the Executive’s Date of Termination, and (c) the fourth paragraph of the “Provisions Regarding Code Section 409A” in Section 10 of the Agreement is
hereby deleted in its entirety. 
 4. Except as expressly modified herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
in accordance with its original terms. 
 5. Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in the Agreement. 
 6. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 [Remainder of page intentionally left
blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and
delivered on the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA, INC.
		
	By:	 	  

	[Name]	 	
	[Title]	 	
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	  

	Mark D. Engstrom



  
 2
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”) I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:   May 13, 2011 |                                           |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                           |
|                      |                                           |
| By                        | /s/   BARBRA E. KOCSIS                         |   |
|                      | Barbra   E. Kocsis                             |   |
|                      | Chief   Financial Officer                      |   |
|                      | (Principal   Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas F. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3583

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Filed: July 12, 2017

Sydney L. Butler, William M. Cromwell, Clay Fowlkes, Claude Shackelford Hawkins, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, David R. Ferguson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Thomas F. Brown, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Brown appeals the district court’s1 denial of his petition for coram nobis relief, in which he sought to vacate his 1995 conviction for manufacturing marijuana and peyote. We agree with the district court that Brown could not relitigate his argument that he is entitled to relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which has been rejected by this court on direct appeal and in numerous subsequent habeas and coram nobis proceedings. See United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (coram nobis relief is substantially equivalent to habeas relief, and abuse-of-writ, principles apply to coram nobis cases); Willis v. United States, 654 F.2d 23, 24 (8th Cir. 1981) (coram nobis petitioner is not entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L, Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Erin L. Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
#### Stephen H. JOHNSON; Paula A. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Successor-In-Interest to Washington Mutual Bank Its Successors and/or Assigns; Does, 1-25, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56156

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Stephen H. Johnson, Pro Se

Paula A. Johnson, Pro Se

Brian H. Newman, Dykema Gossett LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jill Margaret Wheaton, Esquire, Senior Litigating Attor*522ney, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action seeking declaratory relief under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Cervantes v. Countrymde Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Franklin v. Terr,*201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

Dismissal of the Johnsons’ action alleging a TILA claim for rescission was proper because the Johnsons did not exercise their right of rescission within three years of when they consummated the loan transaction. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1635(f); *Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank,*523 U.S. 410, 412-13, 419, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998) (explaining that “§ 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year period”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Annual Report of
RFG Acquisition II Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard F. Beston, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:





(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.





/s/
      Richard F. Beston, Jr.Richard
      F. Beston, Jr.Principal
      Executive OfficerMarch
      18, 2010
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Solomon Nordine, Chief Financial Officer of Border
Management, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No.2) of Border Management,
Inc. for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2009 (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 Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: August 9, 2010

/s/ Solomon Nordine
------------------
Solomon Nordine
Chief Financial Officer,
Border Management, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Sergio OSEGUERA-SALCE, AKA Sergio Salce Oseguera, AKA Sergio Oseguera-Salch, AKA Sergio Osegura, AKA Sergio Salce Osegura, AKA Salce Oseguera Sergio, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71500

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*628Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Sergio Oseguera-Salce, Pro Se

Matt Crapo, 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, 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 **

Sergio Oseguera-Salce, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oseguera-Salce’s motion as untimely, where the motion was filed more than one year after the agency’s final order, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (setting a 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen), and Oseguera-Salce failed to establish changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline,. *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Contrary to Oseguera-Salce’s contention, the BIA did not err in not addressing Oseguera-Salce’s competency in the order under review, where the IJ had addressed competency under *Matter of M-A-M-,*25 I.&N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), during his underlying proceedings, the medical evidence submitted with the motion did not show a matérial change since the IJ hearing, and the BIA considered the new medical evidence as it related to his eligibility for relief, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

Finally, Oseguera-Salce’s contentions that the BIA ignored arguments raised in his motion or did not follow proper criteria in denying his motion are not supported by the record. *See Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 990.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10(g)(5)    
  


        CDEX Inc.
  The Technology Development Company  


February 25, 2002 


Mr. Robert
Stewart

3509 154th Street

Lubbock, TX 79423 


Mr. Stewart:



        Pursuant
to our November 21, 2001 Convertible Note Purchase Agreement, this letter confirms our receipt of the Conversion Request dated February 25, 2002 to convert the
Promissory Note dated February 25, 2002 in the amount of $40,000 (Forty Thousand) to CDEX Common Stock. This is the final Conversion Request under the November 21, 2001 Agreement. 


        CDEX
has converted the following Promissory Notes to CDEX Common stock at your request:   



	Note Date
 
	 	Amount
	 	Request
	 	Shares
	 	Certificate #

	November 21, 2001	 	$	125,000	 	December 15, 2001	 	250,000	 	29
	January 2, 2002	 	$	116,000	 	January 4, 2002	 	290,000	 	28
	February 25, 2002	 	$	40,000	 	February 25, 2002	 	133,334	 	37





        CDEX
and Robert Stewart acknowledge that all Promissory Notes have been destroyed by Robert Stewart upon receipt of appropriate Certificates. 



	
 Robert Stewart

3509 154th Street

Lubbock, TX 79423	 	 
	 	 	 
	
 Michael Mergenthaler
 Director, Business Development

CDEX Inc.	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10(g)(5)
#### Moe B. Rubin, as Assignee of Nettie Rubin, Appellant, *v.*Mary Koppelman et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 14, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*731
      *Samuel Beinhart*and *Philip Olan*for appellant. •

*Maurice Finlcelstein*for Mary Koppelman, respondent.

*Jolwt P. McGrath*and *John J. Buchley*for East New York Savings Bank, respondent.

*Merwin F. Le Vine*for Prudential Insurance Company of America, respondent.

*Martin P. Krimko*for Raygot Realty Corp. et ah, respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0822(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0822(01)

**2001/822/EC: Appendix 2 to Annex III to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community ("Overseas Association Decision") **

*
Official Journal L 324 , 07/12/2001 P. 0001 - 0080 *

Appendix 2 to Annex III to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community ("Overseas Association Decision")(1)

(1) OJ L 314, 30.11.2001, p. 1.

Appendix 2

List of working or processing required to be carried out on non-originating materials in order that the product manufactured can obtain originating status

>TABLE>