alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 1 4192 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:15

- cv
- 80017

- DMM

AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

versus CONNOR LOGAN, individually, THIERRY GENOYER, individually, LUKE GENOYER, individually,

Defendants

- Appellants

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (May 4, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT , JORDAN , and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-14192 Date Filed: 05/04/2016 Page: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: This is a declaratory judgment action brought by American Alternative Insurance Company ( “AAIC”). AAIC issued an umbrella policy of insurance to Thierry Genoyer as the named insured and seeks a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Connor Logan, Thierry Genoyer and Luke Genoyer (“Defendants”) in connection with a personal injury action Logan brought against

the Gen oyers in a Florida state court. 1 The Defendants concede that the “cross

liability exclusion” of the AAIC bars coverage for Logan’s claims against the Genoyers, but argue that they are entitled to coverage under the policy based on promissory estoppel. The District Court rejected Defendants’ promissory estoppel argument and granted AAIC summary judgment in an o rder entered on August 20,

2015. Defendants appeal the judgment. We affirm, concluding for the reasons

stated in the District Court’s order that Defendants failed to establish a case of promissory estoppel as a matter o f law.

AFFIRMED.

1 Logan seeks damages for the injuries he sustained when he lost control of a vehicle entrusted to him by Luke Genoyer, with the permission of his father, Thierry Genoyer, and struck a tree. Case: 15-14192 Date Filed: 05/04/2016 Page: 2 of 2
H. Res. 107

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 5, 2025.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE: Mr. 

Moylan (to rank immediately after Mr. Rulli). 

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 32
  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-K
  (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 L-3.  Date: February 26, 2009
  /s/ Michael T. Strianese

/s/ Ralph G. DAmbrosioMichael T. Strianese
    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Ralph G. DAmbrosio
    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companyat the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

Dated: August 15, 2005 

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCompany, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

 

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 Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Carlos A. BODOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2976

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lucy DASHER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4490

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER VALENCIA GUTIERREZ; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70615 

Agency Nos. A202-159-863 

A202-159-864 

A202-159-865 

A202-159-866 

A202-159-867 

A202-159-868 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 8, 2020**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Javier Valencia Gutierrez and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, 

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision deeming their applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

* 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

JAN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-70615 

(“CAT”) abandoned. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an 

agency’s decision to deem an application abandoned for abuse of discretion. 

Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo due 

process claims. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the 

petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion by deeming petitioners’ applications 

for relief abandoned where the IJ informed petitioners of the deadline for 

biometrics and warned that failure to comply would result in their applications 

being deemed abandoned, and petitioners did not show good cause for their failure 

to comply with the biometrics requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c)-(d) (failure 

to provide biometrics as instructed by the IJ absent a showing of good cause 

constitutes abandonment of the application relief). Petitioners’ due process 

contention fails as well. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish a violation of due process).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case 5:04-cv-00259-C Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 55
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00259-C Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 56
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00259-C Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 57
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00259-C Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 58
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00259-C Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 59
 

 Case 5:04-cv-00259-C Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 60
# What We Investigate

The FBI's investigative programs include counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber, public corruption, civil rights, transnational organized crime, white collar crime, violent crime, and weapons of mass destruction.

- How We Investigate Whether it's the hostage rescue team or the latest intelligence, FBI personnel have a variety of tools and tactics in their investigative toolboxes to keep the public safe.
- Weapons of Mass Destruction The Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate investigates and works to prevent incidents involving nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical weapons.
- Violent Crime The FBI, with its law enforcement partners, plays a key role in combating violent crime involving gangs, crimes against children, crimes in Indian Country, fugitives and missing persons, kidnappings, and bank robberies.
- White-Collar Crime These crimes are not violent, but they are not victimless. White-collar crimes can destroy a company, wipe out a person's life savings, cost investors billions of dollars, and erode the public's trust in institutions.
- Organized Crime The FBI is dedicated to eliminating transnational organized crime groups that pose the greatest threat to the national and economic security of the United States.
- Civil Rights The FBI, the lead agency for enforcing civil rights law, aggressively investigates hate crime, color of law abuses by public officials, human trafficking and involuntary servitude, and freedom of access to clinic entrances violations.
- Public Corruption Public corruption is the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority, that includes border corruption, election crimes, international corruption and prison corruption.
- Cyber Crime The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating cyber attacks by criminals, overseas adversaries, and terrorists. The threat is incredibly serious—and growing.
- Counterintelligence The FBI is the lead agency for exposing, preventing, and investigating intelligence activities, including espionage, in the U.S.
- Terrorism To counter terrorism, the FBI's top investigative priority, we use our investigative and intelligence capabilities to neutralize domestic extremists and help dismantle terrorist networks worldwide.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. TROY ROBINSON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 116 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 12th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.1
Promissory Note

Lender: Corporacion Pipasa, S,A,
Borrower: Atisbos de Belen., S.A.
Amount: c32,914,127
Currency: Costa Rican Colones
Interest Rate: 16.00% fixed rate
Date of issuance: April 1, 2001
Due date: Due on demand
C. D. & O., L.L.C. v. Albert C. STRIPLIN

1160263

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00804]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--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: January 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean 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 
January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
584 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1044, K2025-1043.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00804 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Ronald James LEDDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3659

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2019305EN.01000501.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Baltic Media Alliance Ltd v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija

(Case C-622/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2010/13/EU - Audiovisual media services - Television broadcasting - Article 3(1) and (2) - Freedom of reception and retransmission - Incitement to hatred on grounds of nationality - Measures taken by the receiving Member State - Temporary obligation for media service providers and other persons providing services relating to the distribution of television channels or programmes via the internet to distribute or retransmit a television channel in the territory of that Member State only in pay-to-view packages)

(2019/C 305/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Baltic Media Alliance Ltd

Defendant: Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a public policy measure adopted by a Member State, consisting in an obligation for media service providers whose programmes are directed towards the territory of that Member State and for other persons providing consumers of that Member State with services relating to the distribution of television channels or programmes via the internet to distribute or retransmit in the territory of that Member State, for a period of 12 months, a television channel from another Member State only in pay-to-view packages, without however restricting the retransmission as such in the territory of the first Member State of the television programmes of that channel, is not covered by that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


I,  W.  Donald  Brunson,   Co-Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Coastal  Bancshares
Acquisition  Corp. (the  "Company"),  do hereby  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:

     o    the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the  Company for the quarter
          ended  March 31,  2005,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
          Commission  (the  "Report"),  fully complies with the  requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     o    the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: May 9, 2005


/s/ W. Donald Brunson
------------------------
W. Donald Brunson
Co-Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                              |                                         |                    |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                              | OCCULOGIX, INC.                              |
|                              |                                         |                    |
| Date:   August 13, 2009 | By:                                | /s/ Elias Vamvakas |
|                              |  Chairman & Chief Executive Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of Cornerstone Bancshares, Inc., a Tennessee corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of Nathaniel F. Hughes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Gary W. Petty, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.




Date:September 9, 2011




/s/  Nathaniel F. HughesNathaniel F. HughesPresident(principal executive officer)




/s/  Gary W. Petty, Jr.Gary W. Petty, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and accounting officer)




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cornerstone Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Cornerstone Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### Arpin Construction Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. Napoleon B. Broward Drainage District, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed October 12, 1927.

*Farrington & Lockhart,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*McCune, Casey, Hiaasen & Fleming,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel *635for the respective parties, and the record' having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it -seems to the Court that there is‘no error in the said judgment'; if is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Case 4:03-cv-00422-A Document 19 Filed 03/31/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 123
Case 4:03-cv-00422-A Document 19 Filed 03/31/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 124
Case 4:03-cv-00422-A Document 19 Filed 03/31/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 125
Giovanna RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2972

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Donald K. Peterson, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Avaya Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     The
registrant'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)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
February 10, 2004

| |  | /s/DONALD K. PETERSONDonald K. Peterson Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31730]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--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: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean 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 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 566 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-975, K2025-974.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31730 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
R.S., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0559

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.