alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7355
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JORGE HUMBERTO VERGARA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-94- 261-L) Submitted: December 16, 1997 Decided: January 20, 1998 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorge Humberto Vergara, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jorge Humberto Vergara appeals from a district court order denying his motion for immediate deportation. We affirm.Vergara motioned the district court for his immediate deportation under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1231(a)(4)(B) (West Supp. 1997). Thedistrict court found no private right of action to compel deportation proceedings under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1231. The district court was correct. That section authorizes the Attorney General to remove an alien prior to his term of incarceration if the Attorney General determines that removal is in the best interest of the United States. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1231(a)(4)(B). It does not provide incarcerated aliens a private right of action to compel the Attorney General to deport them. See id. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in declining to construe Vergara's motion as one for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1997). Therefore, we affirm the district court order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NO. 07-08-0334-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

DECEMBER 3, 2008

______________________________

JESSE WALKER AND MELISSA WALKER, APPELLANTS

v.

HUNTERS CROSSING, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 96,861; HON. W. F. “CORKY” ROBERTS, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellants Jesse and Melissa Walker filed a notice of appeal from a judgment entered against them on August 14, 2008.  The clerk’s record was filed in this Court on October 13, and the reporter’s record, on October 9, 2008.

	By letter of November 20, 2008, the Court reminded appellants that their brief was due no later than Wednesday, November 12, and thus was past due.  The letter notified appellants that their appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless their brief was filed, along with a motion for extension of time, by Monday, December 1.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6.

	An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution if an appellant fails to timely file a brief unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the failure.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  On its own motion, with ten days’ notice to the parties, an appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).  Here, appellants have not filed a brief or a motion for extension by the date specified by the Court, despite notice that their failure to do so would subject the appeal to dismissal.  The Court has given the parties the required ten days’ notice.	

	Accordingly, we dismiss appellants’ appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38,8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

	James T. Campbell

	Justice
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., AS TRUSTEE FOR the REGISTERED HOLDERS OF MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1, INC., TRUST 2007-HE7 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-HE7; and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Wilmer B. CALDWELL and Sonya L. Caldwell

1150793

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 12 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 12

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
consideration of a concurrent resolution to provide for a recess of the 
  House after July 31 of any year unless the House has approved each 
          regular appropriation bill for the next fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

 Mr. Wittman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
consideration of a concurrent resolution to provide for a recess of the 
  House after July 31 of any year unless the House has approved each 
          regular appropriation bill for the next fiscal year.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Stay on Schedule (S.O.S.) 
Resolution''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING RECESS DURING AUGUST UNTIL APPROVAL OF ALL REGULAR 
              APPROPRIATION BILLS.

    Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
adding at the end the following new clause:
``Concurrent resolution providing for adjournment during August
    ``13. If by July 31 of any calendar year the House has not passed 
each of the regular appropriation bills for the fiscal year which 
begins on October 1 of that calendar year, it shall not be in order to 
consider a concurrent resolution to provide that the House stand 
adjourned during any day occurring during August of that calendar year 
until the House has passed each such bill. For purposes of this clause, 
term `regular appropriation bill' means any annual appropriation bill 
which is under the jurisdiction of a single subcommittee of the 
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives (as may be 
provided under the Rules for the fiscal year involved).''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADIN LINARES-GONZALEZ; SINDY 

AGUILAR-DELINARES, AKA Sindy 

Aguilar De Linares, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-73814 

Agency Nos. A095-783-915 

A095-784-047 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 24, 2020**

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Adin Linares-Gonzalez and Sindy Aguilar-Delinares, natives and citizens of 

Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

AUG 26 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-73814 

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 

2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Petitioners do not adequately challenge in their opening brief the BIA’s 

denial of their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and 

based on a material change in country conditions. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 

706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued 

in a party’s opening brief are waived). Petitioners also do not challenge the BIA’s 

denial of their request to reopen pursuant to its sua sponte authority, or the BIA’s 

denial of their request for voluntary departure. Id. Thus, these issues are waived.

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ only specific contention that their 

proceedings should be reopened so that they can seek prosecutorial discretion. See 

Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
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 Proguard Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Allerton Towne, 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:
            (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/Allerton Towne
-----------------------------
Allerton Towne
Chief Executive Officer

August 11, 2008


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 Proguard Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Norman Becker, 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/Norman Becker
-----------------------------
Norman Becker
Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 298 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 298

   To eliminate certain limitations and exclusions regarding defense 
articles and requirements regarding security assistance and sales with 
                   respect to the Republic of Cyprus.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2025

Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Ms. Titus, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Pappas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To eliminate certain limitations and exclusions regarding defense 
articles and requirements regarding security assistance and sales with 
                   respect to the Republic of Cyprus.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE REPUBLIC OF 
              CYPRUS.

    (a) Elimination of Limitations and Exclusions Regarding Defense 
Articles.--Section 1250A of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2020 (22 U.S.C. 2373 note) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``repeal of prohibition 
        on'' and inserting ``sense of congress regarding'';
            (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) Sense of 
        Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--'' and inserting 
        the following:
``It is the sense of Congress that--''; and
            (3) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).
    (b) Elimination of Requirements Regarding Security Assistance and 
Certain Sales.--Section 620C of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
U.S.C. 2373) is amended by striking subsections (d) and (e).
                                 <all>
```
STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell Toubya THOMAS

NO. 2017-KP-0649

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

Granted. See Order Attached.

And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit-"It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."

Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.
Earl Raymond CAMPOS, Appellant, v. Joana CAMPOS, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2321

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 26, 2019

Affirmed.
K.C.H., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2709

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer of**

**AdvanceAmerica, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.**

**Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(Adopted bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AdvanceAmerica, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Kenneth E. Compton, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

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

 
|     | /s/  KENNETH E. COMPTON                 |
|----------|-----------------------------------------|
|     |                                    |
|     | Kenneth  E. Compton                     |
| * * | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

May 10,2010

 

----
BTXN 112 (rev. 10/02)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In Re: §

§

§

§

IGH Logistics, LLC Case No.: 23−41490−elm7

 Chapter No.: 7

Debtor(s)

ORDER APPROVING TRUSTEE REPORT AND DISCHARGING TRUSTEE

 The Trustee appointed in the above listed case has filed the Trustee's Report. It is, therefore

 ORDERED that the trustee be discharged.

DATED: 7/21/23 FOR THE COURT:

Robert P. Colwell, Clerk of Court

by: /s/Tracy Nunns, Deputy Clerk

Case 23-41490-elm7 Doc 9 Filed 07/21/23 Entered 07/21/23 08:07:34 Desc Order

Approving Trustee Report Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the periodic report of Eyetech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, David R. Guyer, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, solely for
purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that
to my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date:  March 21, 2005                /s/ David R. Guyer, M.D
                                     -----------------------
                                     David R. Guyer, M.D.
                                     Chief Executive Officer
# C_2016296EN.01003801.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/38

---

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Inox Mare v Commission

(Case T-347/16)

(2016/C 296/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Inox Mare Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision C(2015) 9672 final of 6 January 2016 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/14) and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the follow-up to the decision contested in Case T-289/16, Inox Mare v Commission.

Inox Mare

Commission

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful as a result of the serious irregularities in the related investigation procedure conducted by OLAF and concluded by the Final Report contested in Case T-289/16, as cited above.

In concrete terms, the contested measure is vitiated by:

| — | Infringement and incorrect application of the Community legislation on the anti-dumping duty. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement and incorrect application of the Community legislation on the anti-dumping duty.

| — | Infringement and incorrect application of the Philippine and Community legislation on the duty, conferred on the Philippine customs authorities, to verify the origins of goods certified by those authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement and incorrect application of the Philippine and Community legislation on the duty, conferred on the Philippine customs authorities, to verify the origins of goods certified by those authorities.

| — | Infringement and incorrect application of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement and incorrect application of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

Therefore, in its heads of claim the applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision for infringement of the Treaties and the rules of law relating to their application and for infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 thereof.

---
Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 5 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 6 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 7 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 8 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 9 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 10 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 11 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 12 of 13

Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 1    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:44:17    Desc MainDocument      Page 13 of 13
Exhibit 10.50

SCHEDULE OF AMENDMENTS TO COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

1. Executive
Compensation

Effective January 1, 2006, and pursuant to the annual review of base salary compensation approved by the Compensation
Committee of the Companys Board of Directors, base salaries for its executive officers were increased to the amounts shown in the table below:



|                      |  |                                                 |  |                    |  |                                                   
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Name                  |  | Position                                        |  | Currency of Salary |  | Revised Annual BaseSalary EffectiveJanuary 1, 2006
|Dr. David Fyfe        |  | Chief Executive Officer                         |  | U. S. Dollars      |  | 480,690                                           
|Daniel Abrams         |  | Chief Financial Officer                         |  | British Pounds     |  | 187,775                                           
|Dr. Jeremy Burroughes |  | Chief Technical Officer                         |  | British Pounds     |  | 159,805                                           
|Dr. SB Cha (1)        |  | Vice-President, Commercial                      |  | U. S. Dollars      |  | 280,000                                           
|Dr. Scott Brown       |  | Vice-President, Research                        |  | British Pounds     |  | 164,743                                           
|Stephen Chandler      |  | Vice-President, Legal and Intellectual Property |  | British Pounds     |  | 200,619                                           

---

|(1) | Dr. Cha entered into a new employment agreement with us effective February 1, 2006 and the salary shown was effective from that date.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Overseas Benefits Agreement with Dr. David Fyfe

The Company has noted that Dr. David Fyfes Employment Agreement was amended in August 2004 to change its expiration date from August 2005 to August 2007. Dr. Fyfes Overseas Benefits Agreement
covers his assignment to the United Kingdom and this agreement terminates three months after the Company notifies Dr. Fyfe that his assignment to the United Kingdom is terminated. For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding the provision in
the Overseas Benefits Agreement for that agreement to expire in August 2005, the Company has confirmed to Dr. Fyfe that, as was the intention of both Dr. Fyfe and the Company in August 2004, the Overseas Benefits Agreement was extended to
be coterminous with his Employment Agreement at that time.