alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

MIGUEL MALDONADO and

ESPERANZA FLORES,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70770

Agency Nos. A097-877-608

 A099-898-524

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Maldonado and Esperanza Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico.

petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals,

denying their motion to reconsider or reopen the underlying denial of their

FILED

MAY 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70770

application for cancellation of removal, which was based on petitioners’ failure to

establish the requisite hardship to their United States citizen children.

Petitioners contend that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence submitted

with their motion to reopen, and failed to conduct a minimal review. Petitioners’

argument lacks merit, however, because petitioners presented no evidence with

their motion to reopen. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988) (a movant must

introduce previously unavailable, material evidence with the motion to warrant

reopening); Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003)

(arguments are not evidence). Petitioners’ contention - that the BIA’s denial of

their motion to reopen violated their United States citizen children’s substantive

due process rights by forcing petitioners to terminate their relationship with their

children - is similarly without merit. See Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 954

(9th Cir. 2003).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s

underlying discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen children.

See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003). We also lack

jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ request that the case be reopened sua sponte.
3 10-70770

See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002) (this court lacks

jurisdiction to review the agency’s use of its sua sponte authority).

We conclude that the BIA acted within its broad discretion in denying

petitioners’ motion to reopen or reconsider. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039

(9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it

is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN

PART.
EXHIBIT 32.2

PRB GAS TRANSPORTATION, INC.  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PRB Gas Transportation, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, I,
William P. Brand, Jr, Vice President of PRB Gas Transportation, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



|Date: November 14, 2005                                                                            |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/WILLIAM P. BRAND, JR.William P. Brand, Jr.
Vice PresidentFinance
(Principal Financial Officer) |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Robert Yaquinto, Jr.

State Bar No. 22115750

SHERMAN & YAQUINTO, L.L.P.

509 N. Montclair Avenue

Dallas, TX 75208-5498

214/942-5502 Fax: 214/946-7601

PROPOSED ATTORNEY FOR TRUSTEE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS 

DIVISION

IN RE: §

§

ACTIVE GYMNASTICS CENTER, LLC § CASE NO. 24-32520-MVL-7

§

DEBTOR §

CERTIFICATE OF NO OBJECTION 

TO APPLICATION TO EMPLOY

Robert Yaquinto, Jr., Trustee, does hereby certify that the Application to Employ 

Attorney and Paralegals was filed on September 18, 2024, docket #13, and the objection period 

having passed, no objections or responses have been received by the Trustee as of the 9

th day 

of October 2024.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert Yaquinto, Jr. 

Robert Yaquinto, Jr.

State Bar No. 22115750

SHERMAN & YAQUINTO, L.L.P.

509 N. Montclair Avenue

Dallas, TX 75208-5498

(214) 942-5502; fax (214) 946-7601

Proposed Attorney For Trustee
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-165092) and in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-58298, No. 333-129152, No. 333-147448, No. 333-161459 and 333-168588), of our report dated June 7, 2010 relating to the financial statements of Hotel Ritz Madrid S.A., which appears in this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

 
| /s/   PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores, S.L. |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Madrid,   Spain                              |   |
| June 13, 2011                           |   |

 

1

----
# C_2016462EN.01003101.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/31

---

Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (zerø)

(Case T-722/16)

(2016/C 462/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Party applying for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘zerø’ — Application for registration No 13 031 612

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2371/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 13 031 612 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those goods already covered, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order for it to reverse its own decision by granting registration of the mark in accordance with the findings of the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 13 031 612 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those goods already covered, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order for it to reverse its own decision by granting registration of the mark in accordance with the findings of the Court;

| — | order the other party to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-16-2006

In Re: James Riley

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-4004

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: James Riley " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 186.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/186
 Petitioner seeks an order directing the District Court to grant his preliminary 1

injunction/temporary restraining order. Because such relief is beyond the scope of the

relief available under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), we construe the petition instead, as seeking an

HLD-6 (October 2006) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 06-4004

________________

IN RE: JAMES RILEY,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

(Related to Civ. No. 06-cv-00001)

____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

October 13, 2006

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed November 15, 2006)

_______________________

 OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner James Riley seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United

States District Court for the District of Delaware to rule immediately on his motion for

preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order filed July 18, 2006.1
order that directs the District Court to rule immediately on the motion for preliminary

injunction/temporary restraining order.

2

On October 27, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying Riley’s motion

for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order. Because Riley has now received

the relief he sought in filing his mandamus petition – a ruling on that motion– we will

deny his mandamus petition as moot.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

J. Erik Fyrwald, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nalco Holding Company (Nalco) and Bradley J. Bell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with the filing of Nalcos 10-Q financial report (the Report) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, covering the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2009, hereby certify as follows:



| | a. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations for Nalco.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ J. ERIK FYRWALDJ. Erik FyrwaldChairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 30, 2009/s/ BRADLEY J. BELLBradley J. BellExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate: April 30, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAvaya Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Donald K. Peterson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

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

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
| /s/ DONALD  K. PETERSON                |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald K. Peterson                     |   |
| *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |   |
| August 9, 2005                    |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Christophe Hidalgo, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA DE DISTRIBUIÇÃO;  

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 officers 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 principles; 

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 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 to the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: April 29, 2014

By: /s/ Christophe Hidalgo
Exhibit 13.1
  Certification of Periodic Financial Report
 Pursuant to 18 USC. Section 1350
  The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of RBS Holdings N.V. on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2011, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereto (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
  Jan de Ruiter, the Chairman of the Managing Board and Pieter van der Harst, the Chief Financial Officer of RBS Holdings N.V., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1.      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
  2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of RBS Holdings N.V.
  Date:           March 23, 2012
 
 By:
/s/ Jan de RuiterName:
Jan de RuiterTitle:
Chairman of the Managing Board
 
 By:
/s/ Pieter van der HarstName:
Pieter van der HarstTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

DEMETRIUS MCLAUGHLIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 06-2048 (RMC)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court deferred final disposition of this Freedom of Information Act case — on

partial remand from the District of Columbia Circuit — pending Defendant’s clarification of its

treatment of responsive pages 23 and 24. See Mem. Op. of November 4, 2009 [Dkt. # 46] at 2. In

a supplemental declaration, Defendant confirms, consistent with the in camera submission, that page

24 was withheld in its entirety because “all that would remain [after excising any non-exempt

material] would be the plaintiff’s name and the NADDIS number with no useful information that

would shed light on how the government conducts business.” Second Suppl. Decl. of William C.

Little, Jr. [Dkt. # 49-1] ¶¶ 2-3. In addition, Mr. Little confirms that on November 25, 2009, he

mailed a redacted copy of page 23 to Mr. McLaughlin in response to his claim that he did not receive

that previously released page. Id. ¶ 4. 

On November 23, 2009, Mr. McLaughlin moved for reconsideration of the Order of

November 4, 2009, “to prevent manifest injustice. . . .” Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. and/or in Alternative

to Alter or Amend the Courts’ Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 59(e) [Dkt. # 48]. A Rule

59(e) motion is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that “there is an
-2-

intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear

error or prevent manifest injustice.” Fox v. Am. Airlines Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

(quoting Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). A Rule 59(e) motion is not

“simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.” New

York v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C. 1995). Nor is it an avenue for a “losing party

. . . to raise new issues that could have been raised previously.” Kattan v. District of Columbia, 995

F.2d 274, 276 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Mr. McLaughlin claims that the withheld information should be disclosed because

it is in the public domain and contains exculpatory evidence, but the Court already has rejected such

arguments. See Mem. Op. at 2-4. A separate final Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: January 27, 2010 /s/

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER

United States District Judge
1st Amendment to the Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. 2002 Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 4.5 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
  
 PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 2002 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
  
 Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby amends the Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. 2002 Stock Option Plan (the
“Plan”), with reference to the following facts: 
  
 A.
The Company maintains the Plan to attract and retain the best available personnel for positions of substantial responsibility and to provide additional incentive to selected key employees, consultants and directors through the grant of stock
options. 
  
 B. By Section 16 of the Plan, the Board of Directors
of the Company has reserved the right to amend the Plan with shareholder approval to the extent necessary or desirable to comply with Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, other Applicable Laws, or the requirements of any
exchange or quotation system on which the Common Stock is listed or quoted. 
  
 C. The Company wishes to amend the Plan to restrict the class of individuals who can participate in the Plan as Consultants. 
  
 D. The Company wishes to amend the definition “Share” under Section 2(cc) of the Plan. 
  
 E. The Board of Directors of the Company has determined that such amendments
do not require shareholder approval under the terms of the Plan. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 Section 2(i) of the Plan is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “(i) ‘Consultant’ means any person, including an advisor, who (i) is a natural person, (ii) provides bona fide services to the Company or a Parent or Subsidiary, and (iii) provides services that are not
in connection with the offer or sale of securities in a capital-raising transaction, and that do not directly or indirectly promote or maintain a market for the securities of the Company; provided that the term ‘Consultant’ does not
include (i) Employees or (ii) Directors who are paid only a director’s fee by the Company or who are not compensated by the Company for their services as Directors.” 
  
 Section 2(cc) of the Plan is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “(cc) ‘Share’ means a share of the Common Stock, as adjusted
in accordance with Section 14.” 
  
 In all other respects,
the terms and provisions of the Plan are hereby ratified and declared to be in full force and effect. 
  

 E-17 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this First Amendment to be effective as of August 28, 2002.

  

	PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/    JOHN A. GODFREY


	 	 	 John A. Godfrey
 Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel



  

 E-18
Glynn B. CASE v. WHITNEY BANK

1160096

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.