alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William John GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack FOX, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-56403

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2017

William John Green, San Diego, CA, pro se.

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S., Diana L. Pauli, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Former federal prisoner William John Green appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, *see Alaimalo v. United States,*645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Green’s section 2241 petition alleges various claims relating to his incarceration at multiple federal facilities. We need not determine whether the district court properly dismissed these claims because Green’s release from custody has rendered them moot. *See Munoz v. Rowland,*104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997).

Green also challenges his conviction, alleging that he is actually innocent because he could not have formed the requisite mens rea. The record shows that Green cannot establish he “has not had an unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting this claim in a timely section 2255 motion, and, therefore, he cannot meet this “escape hatch” requirement. *See Harrison v. Ollison,*519 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed this claim for lack of jurisdiction. *See id.*at 961. To the extent that Green challenges the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction and sentence, his conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish his actual innocence for purposes of the “escape hatch.” *See Marrero v. Ives,*682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012).

Green’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the brief at Docket Entry No. 53.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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
third quarter 1997 Form 10-Q for LabOne, Inc. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000816151
<NAME> LABONE, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,826,830
<SECURITIES>                                16,213,004
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,111,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                   880,917
<INVENTORY>                                  2,180,972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,995,776
<PP&E>                                      55,073,399
<DEPRECIATION>                              37,618,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,833,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,605,146
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       150,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  56,078,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,833,947
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            57,775,736
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,750,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,743,004
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,160,902
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,582,102
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,582,102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
- 1 -

U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Zoraida I. Escobar is the Director of

Human Resources (HR) for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(DTRA). In this role she is charged with forming collaborative and

strategic partnerships to acquire, develop, and sustain a highly talented,

innovative, competitive, and diverse workforce that supports the

agency’s mission, vision, and values.

An Army Chemical Corps and Adjutant General Corps Officer with more

than 26 years of military service, Lt. Col. Escobar’s previous strategic 

assignments include serving as the Department of the Army Chief of

Officer Promotions and III Corps, Fort Cavazos, Texas, and as the

Enlisted Personnel Management Branch Chief at Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox,

Kentucky. After serving as an HR Military Assistant to two four-star Combatant Commanders in

Afghanistan, she became the Officer Accessions Policy Integrator in the Directorate, Military 

Personnel Management (DMPM), U.S. Army G-1 at the Pentagon. As a Lieutenant Colonel, she

served as the Installation and Division G1, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado; as a Captain

se commanded Company A, 43rd Adjutant General Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and 

Jupiter Recruiting Company, Miami Recruiting Battalion, Miami, Florida. Her combat tours include

Operation FREEDOM’S SENTINEL, Afghanistan, and Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and NEW

DAWN, Iraq.

Lt. Col. Escobar’s military education include the Eisenhower School for National Security and

Resource Strategy, National Defense University, and U.S. Army Command and General Staff

College. She holds a Master of Science in National Resource Strategy from the National Defense

University; a Master of Arts in Human Resources Management from Webster University; and

Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts from the University of Louisville. She is a certified Senior Professional

in Human Resources (SPHR) by the Human Resources Certification Institute.

Lt. Col. Escobar’s military awards and decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal,

Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, NATO Medal,

U.S. Army General Staff Identification Badge, Combat Action Badge, and Army Recruiter Badge.

She is a Lifetime Member of the Adjutant General Corps Regimental Association (AGCRA) and U.S.

Cavalry & Armor Associations (USCAA). Her professional awards include the COL Robert E.

Manning Award, the Order of Horatio Gates Bronze, and the Noble Patron of Armor.

Lt. Col. Zoraida I. Escobar

Director of Human Resources

Distribution Statement A - Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

BIOGRAPHY

UNCLASSIFIED
Order entered March 26, 20 20

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 00979

- CV

BELL HELICOPTER TEXT RON, INC., Appellant

V.

SHIRLEY DICKSON, IND IVIDUALLY AND AS REP RESE N TATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BILLY DICKSON, DECEASED, R ANDALL C. DICKSON, DARYL W. DI CKSON, AND DEANA K. BOAZ KIZER, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 05995

- D

O RDER NUNC PRO TUNC Before the Court En Banc 1

Before the Court is appellees’ September 9, 2019 motion for en banc

reconsideration. Appellees’ motion is DENIED

.

/s/ D AVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE

1 Justice Molberg and Justice Nowell not pa rticipating.Whitehill, J., Concurring . Joined by Bridges, J., Myers, J., Schenck, J., and Evans,

J.

Carlyle, J., Dissenting . J oined by Bur ns, C.J., O sborne, J

. , Partida

- Kipness, J.
, and Reichek, J.
Exhibit 31.1


Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification





I, James Darrell Thomas, 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 Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2015-1 (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 servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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 party: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.





/s/ James Darrell ThomasJames Darrell ThomasVice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) of Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., Servicer to Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2015-1March 23, 2017
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL

OFFICER 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 Nano-Textile Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of Raz Gal and Shlomo Zakai
does certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of his 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/ Raz Gal             |  | /s/ Shlomo Zakai       
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Raz Gal                 |  | Shlomo Zakai           
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  |                        
|Date: May 21, 2018      |  | Date:  May 21, 2018
U NITED STATES OF A M ERICA

D

EFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY

Discriminatory

Incident

Initial EEO Contact 

(45 Days)

Traditional 

Counseling

(30 Calendar days)

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) 

(90 Calendar days)

Notice of

Right to File

No Action Close

After 15 Days

File Formal

Complaint Within

15 Calendar Days

Negotiated 

Settlement 

Agreement (NSA)

Resolved

Complaint

Filed

Appeal No Action

Close

Investigation

Report of Investigation 

(RMO) Case File Issued

30 Calendar

Days

180 Calendar

Days

Accept

ADR

Negotiated 

Settlement 

Agreement

Close

EEOC Hearing 

(30 Calendar Days)

Final Agency 

Decision

Final Agency 

Action/Order

Implementation

Elect No

Further Action/Appeal

Appeal to

U.S. District Court EEOC OFO

Dismiss

30 Calendar

Days

EEOC OFO

Remand

 PRE-COMPLAINT FORMAL

EEO COMPLAINT PROCESS

For more information, call your EEO office at 703 767-4451/703 767-7769
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,151,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,091,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (193,256)
<INVENTORY>                                    400,424
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,465,618
<PP&E>                                       1,730,713
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,521,188)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,675,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,440,090
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       286,792
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,752,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,675,143
<SALES>                                      4,884,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,884,297
<CGS>                                        2,450,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,827,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,733,694
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                365,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,620
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            363,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   363,438
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
#### Jose Ubaldo LOPEZ-BALVANEDA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70745

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Reza Athari, Esquire, Attorney, Reza Athari *&*Associates, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

David Nicholas Hurling, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision withoqt oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

*878MEMORANDUM **

Jose Ubaldo Lopez-Balvaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying a motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand. *Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to pursue post-conviction relief and file an 1-130 visa petition, where Lopez-Balvaneda waited several years to seek post-conviction relief, and where he did not show he had filed the visa petition more than a year after he was eventually granted post-conviction relief, *See Singh v. Holder,*638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to grant a continuance based on speculation); *Matter of Hashmi,*24 I. & N. Dec. 785 (BIA 2009) (listing factors for agency to consider when deciding whether to continue proceedings for an alien to seek adjustment of status based on a pending visa petition); *see also Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies relevant case law).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Balvaneda’s motion to remand, where he had not shown a visa petition application had been filed on his behalf, and thus could not show a visa was immediately available. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(B) (an immigrant visa must be immediately available to be granted 'adjustment of status); *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA can deny a motion to remand for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought).

In light of this determination, we need not address Lopez-Balvaneda’s contention that he warraflts a grant of adjustment of status in the exercise of discretion, *See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. D-2664.

#### In re Disbarment of Richardson.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 959.]
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Cabinet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2009 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  May 13, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         909,471
<SECURITIES>                                 6,071,363
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    191,030
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,341,141
<PP&E>                                         625,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                 200,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,888,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          201,688
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,690
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,645,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,888,473
<SALES>                                         77,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,800
<CGS>                                           39,375
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,375
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               584,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (969,286)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (969,286)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (969,286)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2021182EN.01006102.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/61

---

Action brought on 15 March 2021 — Vetpharma Animal Health v EUIPO — Deltavit (DELTATIC)

(Case T-146/21)

(2021/C 182/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vetpharma Animal Health, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deltavit SAS (Janzé, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark DELTATIC — Application for registration No 17 806 241

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2020 in Case R 776/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) in connection with Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) in connection with Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### COM. v. SPINKS, T.

1945 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/14/2017

CP-20-CR-0000716-2014, CP-20-CR-0001128-2014 (Crawford)

Affirmed
No. 12-5211.

#### Woltz *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.