alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Danny J. LAROCCO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0553

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 01, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NEVADA BELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PAC-WEST TELECOMM, INC., No. 01-15790

Defendant-Appellant, D.C. No.

and  CV-99-00492-ECR

NEVADA PUBLIC UTILITIES ORDER

COMMISSION; JUDY M. SHELDREW,

and MICHAEL A. PITLOCK,

Commissioners,

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

January 12, 2005—San Francisco, California

Filed January 24, 2005

Before: John T. Noonan, Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges,

and Robert E. Jones.*

COUNSEL

D. Anthony Rodriguez, San Francisco, California, for the

defendant-appellant. 

*The Honorable Robert E. Jones, United States Senior District Judge

for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. 

1013
Kevin M. Fong, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiffappellee. 

ORDER

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

1014 BELL v. PAC-WEST TELECOMM

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2005 Thomson/West.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                       NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

      The undersigned, Joji Tagawa, Treasurer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION, a California corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, in
his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:

      (1)   The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the
Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period June 17, 2003 through
March 31, 2004, and of its performance pursuant to that certain Sale and
Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2003 (the "Agreement"), by and among
the Company, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as Seller, and Nissan Auto
Receivables 2003-B Owner Trust, as Issuer, to be conducted under his
supervision; and

      (2)   To the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based upon such review,
the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement for the
period June 17, 2003 through March 31, 2004.

      This Officer's Certificate is being furnished to Wilmington Trust Company,
as Owner Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Indenture
Trustee, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and Moody's Investors Service, Inc.,
as required by Section 4.09(a) of the Agreement.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 31st day of
March, 2004.

                                        /s/ Joji Tagawa
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Joji Tagawa
                                        Treasurer

                                       12
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 103900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30178]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1045 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-802, K2025-801.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-30178 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEGUNDO ALBERTO PALMACARRILLO, a.k.a. Segundo PalmaCarrillo,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71121

Agency No. A078-019-474

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Segundo Alberto Palma-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of an immigration

judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

FILED

JUL 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71121

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for

substantial evidence factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177

(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Palma-Carrillo established

extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum

application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088,

1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that, separately or taken together, an asylum

applicant’s inability to speak English, his two-months in an immigration detention

center, and the transfer of his case were not “extraordinary circumstances” that

would excuse his excusing his untimely filing).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Palma-Carrillo’s

withholding of removal claim because the unfulfilled threats he received from

unidentified individuals connected with the Sendero Luminoso do not compel the

conclusion that he was persecuted or that it is more likely than not that he will be

persecuted. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005)

(finding no past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution where

applicant “received only telephone or written threats, and never had a personal

confrontation with any of the people threatening him”).
3 08-71121

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of relief under

CAT because Palma-Carrillo failed to show it is more likely than not that he will

be tortured if returned to Peru. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1224 (9th

Cir. 2005) (explaining that “torture is more severe than persecution” and CAT

claims must satisfy a “more likely than not” burden of proof).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
----

 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 Super Energy Investments  Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March  31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report’), I, Ni Jinrong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 (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 result of operations of the Company. 

 /s/ Ni Jinrong   Ni Jinrong   Chief Financial Officer   November 12, 2003 

----
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 CepTor Corporation, (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William H.
Pursley, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of 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.

April 15, 2005

                               William H. Pursley
                               ------------------
                               William H. Pursley
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
```
Quentrell MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4104

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 8, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Darnelle Paige Lawshe, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VIRNETX INC.,

Appellant

v.

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, Performing the Functions 

and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Director of the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office,

Intervenor

______________________

2017-2593

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

00693.

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

VIRNETX INC.,

Appellant

v.

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, Performing the Functions 

and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Director of the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office,

Intervenor

Case: 17-2593 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 04/04/2022
2 VIRNETX INC. v. HIRSHFELD

______________________

2017-2594

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

00957.

______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PROST, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s September 16, 2021 and February 15, 2022 orders, the parties inform the court how 

they believe these appeals should proceed.

In Appeal No. 2017-2594, VirnetX Inc. challenges the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s June 12, 2017 final written decision concerning claims of U.S. Patent No. 

7,921,211. On August 1, 2019, this court issued its decision 

in VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 931 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 

2019), affirming separate Board decisions finding the same 

claims of the patent unpatentable. In light of that decision,

the parties agree that Appeal No. 2017-2594 is moot and 

the underlying Board decision should be vacated. 

In Appeal No. 2017-2593, VirnetX informs the court 

that its request for Director review was denied and it has 

filed an amended notice of appeal. VirnetX further proposes a briefing schedule to which the intervenor does not 

object. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The above-captioned appeals are deconsolidated. 

The revised official captions are reflected above.

Case: 17-2593 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 04/04/2022
VIRNETX INC. v. HIRSHFELD 3

(2) The June 12, 2017 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2016-00957 is vacated, 

and Appeal No. 2017-2594 is remanded with instructions 

to dismiss.

 (3) Each side to bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 

2017-2594. 

(4) No additional docketing fee is required for the 

amended notice of appeal in Appeal No. 2017-2593.

(5) The revised certified list in Appeal No. 2017-2593 

is due no later than April 19, 2022. VirnetX’s opening brief 

is due within 60 days of the date of filing of the certified 

list.

April 4, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

 

Case: 17-2593 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 04/04/2022
V'Nell L. MISKELL v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-00136-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: December 4, 2018 Closed: January 31, 2019

Certiorari - Denied
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1891

In re: DAMETRI DALE
,

Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro . ( 1:23

- cv

- 00282

- TDS

- JLW )

Submitted : September 19, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dametri Dale , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1891 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Dametri Dale petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has

unduly delayed in ruling on his motions for temporary injunctive relief in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action

. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The

pres ent record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. A ccordingly, we deny the

mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument woul d

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1891 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
James Kenneth COCHRAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1843

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 4, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Lisa Lott, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Maxcom Telecomunicaciones, S.A.B. de C.V.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly represent in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
     5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    SIGNATURE:
    
    /s/ Jose Antonio SolbesTITLE:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
Charles H. PARKER v. Kristen WOLKART, RN, MHA, President/CEO, St. Francis Medical Center

NO. 2017-CI-1556

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GIBSON HALL

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellee. §

§

§ No. 363 , 2018

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 88004234DI (N)

§

§

§

Submitted: July 27 , 2018

Decided: August 17 , 2018

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR

, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, the Court

concludes that :

(1) On July 16, 2018 , the appellant, Gibson Hall , filed a notice of appeal

from a Superior Court order, dated June 18 , 2018, denying his motion f or transcripts

.

Hall sought the transcripts to provide documentation in support of postconviction

relief. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Hall to show cause why this

appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear

an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter

. In his response to the notice to show

cause, Hall argues that the order denying his motion for transcripts is final and

immediately appealable.2

(2) Hall is mistaken. Under the Delaware Constitution only a final

ju dgment may be reviewed by the Court in a criminal case. 1 T he Superior Court’ s

June 18, 2018 order denying Hall’s motion for transcripts is an interlocutory order. 2

The denial of a motion for transcripts is not appealable as a final order before entry

of a final judgment on a motion for postconviction relief. 3 In denying Hall’ s motion

for transcripts the Superior Court noted that a motion for postconviction relief would

likely be subject to summary dismissal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2),

bu t Hall did not file a motion for postconviction relief and the Superior Court did

not deny a motion for postconviction relief in the June 18, 2018 order

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29 (b ),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).

2 See, e.g., Davis v. State , 2014 WL 4243634, at *1 (Del. Aug. 26, 2014) (holding that order

denying motion for transcripts to pursue further postconviction remedies was interlocutory).

3 Id.
CERTIFICATIONS   I, Simon Ridgway, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 20-F/A of Radius Gold Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date: June 27, 2012  By: /s/ Simon Ridgway Simon Ridgway Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.22

                                  July 21, 2004

VIA FAX:  212-765-9714
----------------------

Tymatt Associates, LLC
1776 Broadway, Suite 1403
New York, NY  10019

Attention:  Mr. Ken Levine

               RE:  ARTISAN AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT DATED 03/02/04;
                    EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ISSUANCE OF SHARES
                    ----------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Levine:

         Please let this confirm our understanding  that you, as Managing Member
of Tymatt Associates, LLC, have agreed to extend the time for Stratus to deliver
payment of the One Million Seven Hundred Fifty  Thousand  (1,750,000)  shares of
Common Stock due within seven (7) days of the Initial Closing per paragraph 3 of
the March 2, 2004 Letter  Agreement  to a time frame of no later than August 13,
2004.

         If the same meets with your approval, kindly sign where indicated below
and return a copy to me.

                                                     Very truly yours,


                                                     Suzette Nanovic Berrios
                                                     General Counsel


                           AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
                           -------------------------


TYMATT ASSOCIATES, LLC                              STRATUS SERVICES GROUP, INC.


By: /s/ Ken Levine                                  By: /s/ Joseph J. Raymond
    -----------------------------                       ------------------------
    Ken Levine                                          Joseph J. Raymond
    Managing Member                                     Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Ken Levine
--------------------------------
Ken Levine, Individually