alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kabita CHOUDHURI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Treena Berlinsky, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15192

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Kabita Choudhuri, Pro Se

*878Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

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 **

Kabita Choudhuri appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction in her action concerning a mortgage loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an abuse of discretion. *Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles,*834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as moot Choudhuri’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Choudhuri failed to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm in light of Wells Fargo’s agreement to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of this case. *See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,*555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish ... that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.... ”).

The district court did not abuse its dis-. cretion by denying Choudhuri’s motion for reconsideration because Choudhuri failed to demonstrate any basis for reconsideration. Sc*h. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

Contrary to Choudhuri’s contention, the district court was not required to hold a hearing and allow oral argument prior to ruling on the preliminary injunction motion. *See*N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) (“In the Judge’s discretion ... a motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone conference call.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Choudhuri’s contention that the district court failed to provide adequate notice that the preliminary injunction motion would be considered at the January 17, 2017 case management conference.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Promoting Bunyavirales Basic Science Research (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         April 5-6, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E72A, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Frank S. De Silva, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E72A, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5023,                         *fdesilva@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 3, 2022. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04942 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
DISMiSS; Opinion Filed January 17, 2013.



### In The 

## (!inirt 

## rifAppra1 .Fift1 

## Hstrirt nf 

## Jxa at 

## Da11a No. 05-12-00626-CV 

### ERICA MAHOP, Appellant V. 

### GMAC MORTGATE, LLC, Appellee

On \ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC- 12-01 209A 

### OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang Opinion byJustice Moseley Appellant’s briefis overdue. By letter dated October 5, 2012, we notified appellant the time to fileherbriefhad expired. We directed appellantto file herbriefand an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal ofthis appeal. To date, appellant has not filed her brief, an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded withthe Court regarding the status ofherappeal. Accordingly vve dismiss this appeal 

### Sec TEX R AP P 

### 38 8 (A)( 1)42 3(b) (c)

/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE I20626F.P05

## (nitrt nfAiica1i .fifth Jitrirt nf Irxa% 

## at a11a JUDGMENT Erica Mahop, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas No. 0512-00626-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-0l209A. ()pinion delivered b Justice Moseley. (iMAC Mortuate, LLC. Appellee Justices Francis and Lang participating. iii accordance with this Court’s opinion ofthis (late, this appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellee (iMAC Mortgate, LLC recoverits costs ofthis appeal from appellant Erica Mahop. Judgment entered this January 17. 201 3.

/ / / / I JIM MØSELE .JUST1CE
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF MAY 24, 2016

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD78172 Patricia Mills vs. Cerner Corporation

WD78395 Demun Walker vs. State of Missouri

WD79027 In the Interest of: J.C.V., II Juvenile Officer; Department of Social Services

Children’s Division vs. M.R.-A.C. (Mother)

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD78469 State of Missouri vs. Kenneth Pickens III
Exhibit 4.4
                                                                    to Form 20-F

             Amendment to the Basic Agreement of June 17th/18th 1999





                                     between



                               LION bioscience AG
                                Waldhoferstr. 98
                            69123 Heidelberg, Germany
                         - called "LION" hereinafter -



                                       and



                                    Bayer AG
                                51368 Leverkusen
                         - called "Bayer" hereinafter -



<PAGE>


       WHEREAS, LION has provided, and continues to provide certain services and
deliverables to BAYER under the Basic Agreement of June 17th/18th 1999
(hereinafter, the "BASIC AGREEMENT");

       WHEREAS, the BASIC Agreement specifies the services and deliverables to
be provided to BAYER by LION in return for the consideration paid by BAYER to
LION as specified in the BASIC AGREEMENT;

       WHEREAS, Bayer has requested that LION perform certain additional
services and deliverables not provided for in the BASIC AGREEMENT, specifically
the identification and delivery of 200 so-called "public domain" targets (the
"ADDITIONAL TARGETS") in accordance with the specifications of BAYER, in return
for an additional payment by Bayer;

       NOW, therefore, the parties agree as follows.

       BAYER shall pay LION an additional fee in the total amount of US
$2,310,000.00 in return for the delivery of the 200 ADDITIONAL TARGETS.

       Payment of this fee is in addition to, and does not reduce or modify, the
fees set forth in the BASIC AGREEMENT that BAYER is required to pay LION for the
services and deliverables to be provided to BAYER under the BASIC AGREEMENT.

       This additional fee shall become immediately due and payable upon
acceptance of the ADDITIONAL TARGETS by Bayer.

       The terms of the Amendment to the BASIC AGREEMENT of February 15, 2002
shall be null and void.

       All other provisions of the BASIC AGREEMENT remain in full force and
effect without modification.

       IN WITNESS THEREOF, intending to be bound hereby, have signed this
Amendment as of February 16, 2002.

       LION BIOSCIENCE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT


        /s/Friedrich von Bohlen und Halbach
       ------------------------------------
       Dr. Friedrich von Bohlen und Halbach


       BAYER AG

        /s/Wolfgang Hartwig
       ------------------------------------
       Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hartwig
<PAGE>   1

                       DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                 MARCH 31,
                                                                              (000'S OMITTED)
                                                                           ---------------------
                                                                             2000         1999
                                                                             ----         ----

<S>                                                                        <C>          <C>
BASIC
Net earnings available to common shareholders                              $    153        1,112
                                                                           ========     ========

Shares:
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                     5,187        4,250
                                                                           ========     ========

Net earnings per common share                                              $   0.03         0.26
                                                                           ========     ========


DILUTED
Net earnings for diluted calculation                                       $    153        1,112
                                                                           ========     ========

Shares:
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                     5,187        4,250
     Shares issuable from assumed exercise of options and warrants            3,054        3,033
     Convertible debt                                                         1,790        2,000
     Convertible preferred stock                                              1,769        1,314
                                                                           --------     --------
                                                                             11,800       10,597
                                                                           ========     ========

Net earnings per common share                                              $   0.01         0.11
                                                                           ========     ========
</TABLE>


                                    Page 20
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RALI Series 2006-QS16 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do not contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
   material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
   circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not  misleading  with
   respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

   In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably relied on information
   provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  parties:  Greenpoint  Mortgage
   Funding,  Inc., HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA),  National City Mortgage Co.,
   SunTrust  Mortgage,  Inc.,  Wachovia  Mortgage  Corporation and Deutsche Bank
   Trust Company Americas.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
    Name: Anthony N. Renzi
    Title: Managing Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Iram CARBARIN-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41205 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carlos Iram Carbarin-Ortiz, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Carbarin-Ortiz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Car-barin-Ortiz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**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 the Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Marc J. Oppenheimer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

Date:December 10, 2007 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, 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 IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDTCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.1
 
 Amendment Plan
 1.
    
    Section 1.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
 Establishment; Prior Plan Holdings Board Holdings Initial Plan First
Amendment Second Amendment Original Plan COI Amendment Plan Reorganization Agreement Toys
 2.
    
    Article II of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the following defined terms: Sponsor
Inflows, Sponsor IRR and Sponsor Outflows.3.
    
    Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
 Vesting of Options Section
4.2




---



##### 



Cumulative PercentageDate
    
    of Shares Vested2nd anniversary of date of grant
    
    
    40
    %3rd anniversary of date of grant
    
    
    60
    %4th anniversary of date of grant
    
    
    80
    %5th anniversary of date of grant
    
    
    100
    %
 Notwithstanding the foregoing, all Options shall be considered 100% vested upon
consummation of a Change in Control. Consistent with the Boards authority under Section
13.2 of the Plan to change the terms of an Award Agreement without the prior written
approval of such Participant, any Options outstanding as of June 8, 2009 that were
originally granted as Tranche II or Tranche III Options shall be and hereby are amended to
eliminate any performance vesting requirements, so that such Options shall be subject only
to time vesting in accordance with the above schedule, based on the applicable anniversary
of the original date of grant of such Options.4.
    
    Section 6.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
 Exercise on Termination
 5.
    
    Section 6.3 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the following parenthetical expression
from the first sentence thereof: (including whether Options are Tranche I, II, or III Options
or are Rollover Options) and replacing it with the following parenthetical expression:
(including an indication of whether they are Options or Rollover Options).6.
    
    Section 9.6 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the following parenthetical expression
from the second sentence thereof: (including whether such shares are issuable upon exercise
of Tranche I, II, or III Options or Rollover Options) and replacing it with the following
parenthetical expression: (including whether such shares are issuable upon exercise of
Options or Rollover Options).
 2




---



##### 



7.
    
    Continuing Force and Effect. The Plan, as modified by the terms of this Amendment,
shall continue in full force and effect from and after the date of the adoption of this
Amendment set forth above.
  3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7183

ANDREW BURL WRIGHT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MARY MITCHELL, Warden of FCI,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (6:10-cv-03147-DCN)

Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Burl Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Burl Wright, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 

2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Wright v. Mitchell, No. 6:10-cv-03147-

DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2011). 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
Order filed January 31, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01049-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.L., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-20727

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 30, 2018. Appellant I.L.L. 

timely filed a post judgment motion. The notice of appeal was due November 28, 

2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, filed the notice of appeal on 

November 30, 2018, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument 

is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 

(Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of 

appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to come 

forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. 
Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to 

file the notice of appeal on or before February 11, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P.

26.3;10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM