alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1299

___________________________

Angel Alex Cun-Luc

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: February 16, 2016

Filed: February 25, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Angel Alex Cun-Luc petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen

proceedings. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion, see Martinez

v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262, 1264-65 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing for abuse of discretion

denial of motion to reopen); Averianova v. Holder, 592 F.3d 932, 936 (8th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing BIA’s decision regarding changed country conditions under highly

deferential abuse of discretion standard). The BIA did not err in determining that

Cun-Luc’s second motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i) (generally party may file one motion to reopen proceedings;

motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of date order of removal becomes

administratively final); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (same). While there is a changedcountry-conditions exception to the filing deadline and numerical limitation for

motionsto reopen, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(A), (C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(i)-(ii),

1003.23(b)(4)(i), we agree with the BIA that Cun-Luc failed to show he qualified for

the exception, see Zhong Qin Zheng v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 893, 895-96 (8th Cir.

2008) (discussing exception). The petition for review is denied.

______________________________

-2-
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000372

29-OCT-2014

08:35 AM
2020.

#### Harker *v.*The State.

Argued October 4, —

Decided November 3, 1909.

*Austin Branch,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. G. G. Blade Jr., solicitor, John M. Graham,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. Tlie bill of exceptions was certified by the trial judge on June 12. Service was acknowledged June 12. It was not filed in the office of the clerk of the city court until June 30. This court is without jurisdiction, on account of the failure to file the bill of exceptions within the time required by law; and the writ of error is dismissed. *Johnson*v. *State, 5 Ga. App.*490, and cit.

2. It appears, however, that the exceptions are to interlocutory matters, and that the bill of exceptions was certified and filed during the term. Upon the special facts shown, the court grants the application of the plaintiff in error for a direction that the official copy of the bill of exceptions, of file in the office of the clerk of the trial court, shall operate as exceptions pendente lite.

*Writ of error dismissed, iiñih direction.*
----

Exhibit No. 32.1 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofAmerican Lorain Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2008,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Si Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that: 

(1) 

The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) 

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

Dated: May 16, 2008 

/s/ Si Chen                                        Si Chen Chief Executive Officer 

 

----
EX PARTE Gregory T. CREWS

CR-16-0765

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Innocent GEDEHOMME, DOC #S34447, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1266

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 
as adopted Pursuant to Section 906 
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Lorain Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Yilun Jin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 14, 2008

/s/ Yilun JinYilun Jin 
Chief Financial Officer

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

---
1 The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-3846

___________ Anita J. Hunter, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court of the * Western District of Arkansas. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of * the Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 24, 2002 Filed: June 27, 2002

___________ Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Anita Hunter, who alleged she was disabled beginning in July 1996 from diabetes, fibromyalgia, and carpal tunnel syndrome, appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.-2- Having reviewed the record and Hunter’s arguments on appeal that were properly raised in the district court, seeRoberts v. Apfel , 222 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2000) (argument not presented to district court is subject to forfeiture on appeal unless manifest injustice would result), we find the Commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, see Cunningham v. Apfel , 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). In particular, the administrative law judge (ALJ) permissibly determined--after consideration of Hunter’s medical records, observations of her treating physicians, and her own description of her limitations, to the extent her statements were deemed credible--that Hunter retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform the full range of light work and was therefore not disabled. See Pearsall v. Massanari , 274 F.3d 1211, 1217-18 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ determines claimant’s RFC based on all relevant evidence); Hogan v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8th Cir. 2001) (deference to ALJ’s opinion is appropriate when ALJ explicitly discredits claimant and gives good reason for doing so); Reed v. Sullivan , 988 F.2d 812, 816 (8th Cir. 1993) (reliance on medical-vocational guidelines, without testimony of vocational expert, is allowed if ALJ determines that claimant’s nonexertional limitations do not significantly affect claimant’s RFC). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2020313EN.01001501.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 July 2020 — DQ v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-323/20)

(2020/C 313/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DQ

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Question referred

| 1. | Does a trade union organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a trade union organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

| 2. | Is it relevant whether the strike in question is proceeding on the basis of demands by the staff that have not thus far been contractually agreed by the staff and the operating air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant whether the strike in question is proceeding on the basis of demands by the staff that have not thus far been contractually agreed by the staff and the operating air carrier?

| 3. | Is it relevant whether the specific strike was triggered by certain conduct of the operating air carrier during the negotiations with the trade union?
  By order of the President of the Court of Justice of 7 August 2020, the case was removed from the register of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant whether the specific strike was triggered by certain conduct of the operating air carrier during the negotiations with the trade union?

By order of the President of the Court of Justice of 7 August 2020, the case was removed from the register of the Court.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
Sara Kathleen BLACKWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Simon Alejandro SIEGERT, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0753

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JESSIE J. SMITH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 305

[ June 2, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jeffrey Gillen , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 502014CF010800A

.

Jessie J. Smith, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, L EVINE

, and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit










AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF 
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., AS AMENDED


The Amended and Restated Bylaws of Impax Laboratories, Inc., as amended (the “Bylaws”) are hereby amended as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 14 of Article III shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


“SECTION 14. NUMBER.  The authorized number of directors shall be no less than one nor more than eight. Within the foregoing limits, the number of directors shall be fixed from time to time by resolution adopted by the Board. (Del Code Ann., tit. 8, §§ 141(b)).”
2.Except as expressly modified hereby, the Bylaws and all the provisions contained therein shall remain in full force and effect.
This Amendment No. 2 to the Bylaws was adopted by the Board of Directors of Impax Laboratories, Inc., effective July 7, 2015.


/s/ Mark A. Schlossberg
Name: Mark A. Schlossberg
Title:   Senior VP, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Teresa SERAFINE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Dean SERAFINE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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 Annual Report of Trend Mining Company (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Ryan,
      Principal 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, to the best of 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.





January
      13, 2006





/s/
      John P. Ryan





John
      P.
      Ryan


Principal
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002),  I, the  undersigned  President  and Chief
Executive  Officer of Nuclear  Solutions,  Inc., (the "Company"),  herby certify
that,  to the best of my  knowledge,  the  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the
Company for the period ended  December 31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully  complies
with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of the
Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the  registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated May ___, 2005.                                    /s/ Patrick Herda
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        President and CEO
Cindy Kaye Henderson REESE v. STATE

CR-16-0391

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 11, 2017 Reh. denied September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana and Vermilion Parish School v. The LOUISIANA LAND AND EXPLORATION CO., et al.

BOARD NO. 2018-CC-2112

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., recused.
William CASIANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1589

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Christopher M. Lee 

State Bar No. 24041319 

Jim Morrison 

State Bar No. 14519050 

LEE LAW FIRM, PLLC 

8701 Bedford Euless Rd, Ste 510 

Hurst, TX 76053 

469-646-8995 Phone 

469-694-1059 Fax 

ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

IN RE: § 

 § 

JORIS LYNN DIXON SR. § CASE NO. 24-42307-MXM-13

LACHEKA CHONTA WINFREY § 

Debtors § CHAPTER 13

§ 

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL ORDER AND 

REINSTATE CHAPTER 13 CASE 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT: 

 COME NOW Debtors, Joris Lynn Dixon Sr. and Lacheka Chonta Winfrey, and request 

an order reinstating the above referenced Chapter 13 case after dismissal, and would show the 

Court as follows: 

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §105 and 28 

U.S.C. §1334. This matter constitutes a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§157(b). 

2. Debtors filed their petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 13 on July 1, 2024. 

3. Debtors' case dismissed on July 22, 2024, as a result of failure to timely file 

schedules A-J, statement of financial affairs, and CMI. 

4. Debtors filed schedules A-J, statement of financial affairs, and CMI on July 23, 

2024. 

Case 24-42307-mxm13 Doc 20 Filed 07/23/24 Entered 07/23/24 17:35:16 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
5. Debtors respectfully request this Court to grant their request to reinstate their 

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Debtors Joris Lynn Dixon Sr. and Lacheka 

Chonta Winfrey respectfully request that the Court enter an order reinstating their case under 

Chapter 13 and the stay be reinstated upon order being entered, and for any and such other relief 

as the Court may deem just. 

Dated: July 23, 2024

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 LEE LAW FIRM, PLLC 

 By: /s/Christopher M Lee 

 Christopher M. Lee 

 State Bar No. 24041319 

 Jim Morrison 

 State Bar No. 14519050 

 LEE LAW FIRM, PLLC 

 8701 Bedford Euless Rd, Ste 510 

 Hurst, TX 76053 

 469-646-8995 Phone 

469-694-1059 Fax 

 ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR 

Case 24-42307-mxm13 Doc 20 Filed 07/23/24 Entered 07/23/24 17:35:16 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 23, 2024 a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was served on all parties in interest below and on the attached mailing matrix. 

DEBTOR: 

Joris Lynn Dixon 

Lacheka C. Winfrey

6721 Morning Crest Court 

Arlinton, Texas 76002 

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE: 

Pam Bassel 

7001 Blvd. 26, Suite 150 

North Richland Hills, TX 76180 

U.S. TRUSTEE 

Rm. 976 

1100 Commerce Street 

Dallas, TX 75242 

 By: /s/ Christopher M. Lee 

 Christopher M. Lee 

 State Bar No. 24041319 

 

 ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR 

Case 24-42307-mxm13 Doc 20 Filed 07/23/24 Entered 07/23/24 17:35:16 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
Warren R. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2688

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 18, 2019

Warren R. Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Warren R. Johnson was convicted in 2005 of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum. Since his convictions and sentences became final, Johnson has filed seven postconviction motions. All seven have been denied by the postconviction court.

Here, Johnson appeals the trial court's order summarily denying his eighth motion for postconviction relief. Johnson alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to multiple problems with the jury instructions, for failing to object to improper comments by the prosecutor, and for failing to convey a plea offer. The trial court properly denied Johnson's eighth postconviction motion as untimely and successive. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b), (h)(2). We, therefore, affirm the trial court's order, and, by separate order, direct Johnson to show cause why he should not be barred from future pro se filings in this Court.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-43536, 333-107245, 333-75314, 333-126991, 333-126993) pertaining to the Employee Stock PurchasePlan, 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, and 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of American Medical SystemsHoldings, Inc. of our reports dated February 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting of American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc., included inthis Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 29, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPMinneapolis, Minnesota
1845.

#### Chicago Portrait Company *v.*O’Neal *et al.*

Action on bond, from city court of Tifton — Judge Eve. March 13, 1909.

Submitted June 10,

Decided July 6, 1909.

*J. B. Murrow, J. J. Murray,*for plaintiff.

*Pulwood & Murray,*for defendants.

Powell, J.

The admissions of a principal are prima facie evidence against his sureties, if made pending the relationship and concerning the transaction as to which the suretyship exists. *Stephens*v. *Crawford,*1 *Ga.*574 (44 Am. D. 680); *Dobbs*v. *Justices,*17 *Ga.*625; 2 Wigmore on Evidence, §1077; 1 Enc. Ev. 586, 587; 27 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.), 456. *Judgment reversed.*
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 3510 Lower Tribunal No. CF 23

- 243

_____________________________
O SCAR D ANIEL S ANCHEZ , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Highlands County

. Angela J. Cowden , Judge.

August 27, 2024

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.

TRAVER
, C

. J. , and NARDELLA and WHITE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Iza k owitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffin g ton, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED