alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{01473405.DOC / } 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SANTIAGO ABREU )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-249

)

TRG ENTERPRISES, INC. )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION TO DISMISS

The Parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel, hereby advise the Court that 

this matter has been settled and resolved in its entirety, with the Parties to bear their own costs. 

The Parties have entered into a lengthy and detailed Settlement Agreement; that Settlement 

Agreement has been fully executed. Any funds or fees scheduled to be paid pursuant to the 

Settlement Agreement have been processed. Any compliance repairs or further work has begun 

and has a scheduled completion date. Accordingly, the Parties are in Agreement that this matter 

should be dismissed with Prejudice, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of 

the Settlement Agreement, if necessary.

Date: March 6, 2017

__/s/George T. Blackmore___ __/s/ Brian A. Rosenblatt____

Counsel for Plaintiff, Counsel for Defendant,

SANTIAGO ABREU TRG ENTERPRISES, INC.

Chastain & Afshari, LLP Bryce Downey & Lenkov LLC

George T. Blackmore, Esq. Brian A. Rosenblatt, Esq. (IL ARDC# 6243772)

21411 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200 200 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 2700

Southfield, MI 48076 Chicago, IL 60601

George@cnalawgroup.com brosenblatt@bdlfirm.com

Phone: (248) 845-8594 Phone: (312) 377-1501

Fax: (480) 999-0665 Fax: (312) 377-1502

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00249-JD-PRC document 20 filed 03/06/17 page 1 of 2
{01473405.DOC / } 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 6, 2017, a copy of the foregoing Stipulation to Dismiss

was filed electronically. Notice of this will be sent to the following party listed below by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the 

Court’s system.

George T. Blackmore, Esq.

Chastain & Afshari, LLP

21411 Civic Center Drive

Suite 200

Southfield, MI 48076

E-Mail: george@cnalawgroup.com

/s/ Brian A. Rosenblatt

Brian A. Rosenblatt (IL ARDC# 6243772)

Bryce Downey & Lenkov LLC

200 North LaSalle Street 

Suite 2700

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: (312) 377-1501

Fax: (312) 377-1502

brosenblatt@bdlfirm.com

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00249-JD-PRC document 20 filed 03/06/17 page 2 of 2
#### Eugene JOSEPH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 10-2730.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued July 12, 2011.

Decided Aug. 4, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 2011.

David Trais, Attorney, Robert Perkins & Associates, Culver City, CA, for Petitioner.

Nancy Canter, Attorney, OIL, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Eugene Joseph, a Nigerian citizen, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his fourth motion to reopen his removal proceedings. That motion asserted that Joseph had new evidence to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We assume familiarity with the facts presented in our previous order. *Joseph v. Holder,*321 Fed.Appx. 505 (7th Cir.2009). For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that the petition for review now before us completely fails to address the Board’s rejection of Joseph’s ineffective-assistance claim. Instead, Joseph challenges the IJ’s original denial of his request for a waiver of inadmissibility and the Board’s prior decisions on his previous administrative appeals. Joseph’s only mention of the Board’s latest decision in his current petition appears in the jurisdictional statement, in which he refers to the decision merely to show that the petition was timely. Because Joseph failed to articulate *any*argument with respect to the Board’s latest decision, we conclude that he has forfeited his right to seek judicial review of that decision. *See Haxhiu v. Mukasey,*519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir.2008); *Asere v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 378, 381 (7th Cir.2006); *Brucaj v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 602, 611 n. 7 (7th Cir.2004).

The petition for review is DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 28437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13349]



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


United States International Trade Commission

TIME AND DATE: June 6, 1995 at 2:30 p.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agenda for future meeting.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 731-TA-703-704 (Final) (Furfuryl Alcohol from the 
People's Republic of China and South Africa)--briefing and vote.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: May 25, 1995.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13349 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEAN SHAKA MYLES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR01-35)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Marr, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M.

DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Harvey E. Eisenberg, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Shaka Myles appeals his conviction, entered upon a

written plea agreement, of conspiracy to distribute and to possess

with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and

fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846 (2000). As part of his written plea agreement, Myles

expressly waived his right to appeal any sentence falling within

the statutory range, except for the right to appeal based on an

upward or downward departure from the guideline range established

at sentencing. Following an extensive Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing,

the district court accepted Myles’ plea, and sentenced him to 262

months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $100

special assessment.

Myles claims on appeal that the district court erred in not

granting him a downward departure from the guideline range. As to

this claim, we find that Myles knowingly and voluntarily waived his

right to appeal. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th

Cir. 1992).

We therefore dismiss Myles’ appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Jose Ernesto GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Linda SANDERS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-56682.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 6, 2011.

Jose Ernesto Garcia, Lompoc, CA, pro se.

*752Assistant U.S. Attorney, Esquire, Donna Ford, AUSA-Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

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

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jose Ernesto Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Garcia contends that the Federal Bureau of Prisons unlawfully refused his request for a transfer to a Residential Reentry Center in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).

A federal prisoner is required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a habeas petition. *See Martinez v. Roberts,*804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir.1986) (per cu-riam). Garcia has not exhausted his administrative remedies, nor has he shown that exhaustion of his administrative remedies would be futile. *See Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.1991). Thus, the district court properly dismissed his petition without prejudice. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated July 28, 2006 relating to our audit of theconsolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedule and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. for the year ended April 30,2006 in the previously filed Registration Statements of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-123490) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-96923, 333-106975, 333-118705, and 333-126415). 

 

Our report, dated July 28, 2006, on management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of April 30, 2006, expressed an opinion that management’s assessment that Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. did not maintain effective control over financialreporting as of April 30, 2006, is fairly stated, in all material respects based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Also, ourreport expressed an opinion that Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. had not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of April 30, 2006, based on COSO. 

 

/s/ MCGLADREY AND PULLEN, LLP 

 

Irvine, California 

July 28, 2006
```
Salomon Home Equity Loan Trust  Asset Backed Pass-Through
Certificates  Series 2002-WMC1
```

```
Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions to
Certificateholders for 2002
```

```
Class   Interest           Principal PaidRealized     Ending Balance
        Distribution                     Losses
```

```
A       3,877,316.48       40,951,765.92 0.00         162,038,234.08
CE      13,198,016.85      0.00          0.00         3,714,089.97
M1      424,309.96         0.00          0.00         16,709,000.00
M2      428,123.92         0.00          0.00         13,616,000.00
M3      294,131.34         0.00          0.00         8,045,000.00
M4      98,548.83          0.00          0.00         2,475,000.00
P       754,250.44         0.00          0.00         100.00
R       0.00               0.00          0.00         0.00
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1854 

To suspend temporarily the duty on magnesium zinc aluminum hydroxide 

carbonate hydrate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on magnesium zinc 

aluminum hydroxide carbonate hydrate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MAGNESIUM ZINC ALUMINUM HYDROXIDE CAR4 BONATE HYDRATE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.04.61 Magnesium zinc aluminum 

hydroxide carbonate hydrate 

(CAS No. 169314–88–9) 

(provided for in subheading 

3812.30.90) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1854 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          77,631
<SECURITIES>                                   592,227
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,475,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,866,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,538,288
<PP&E>                                       6,426,380
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,756,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,182,533
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       222,613
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,391,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,756,647
<SALES>                                     23,735,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,735,903
<CGS>                                       18,832,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,871,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             994,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (114,976)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,451
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (140,427)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 174,639
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.00
        

</TABLE>
(26 App. Div. 587.)

#### ELLIOT et al. v. VAN SCHAICK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 22, 1898.)

Appeal—Review.

Where plaintiffs file no exceptions to direction of verdict for defendant, and no appeal is taken from an order refusing a new trial, the correctness of the order directing verdict cannot be reviewed on appeal.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Harry E. Elliot and Albert L. Bouyon against Eugene "Van Schaick. From a judgment on a verdict directed by the court, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and CULLEN", BARTLETT, HATCH, and WOODWARD, JJ. ' '

John Andrews, Jr., for appellants.

Van Schaick & Horton, for respondent

PER CURIAM.

At the close of the evidence, both parties requested the court to direct a verdict. By consent, the decision of these applications was reserved. Subsequently the court directed a verdict for the defendant. Under the practice adopted, no exception could have been taken on the trial to the ruling of the court, for the decision was not made until after the close of the trial. Provision for such a case is made in sections 994 and 1185 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorize the unsuccessful party to file a notice of exception within 10 days after the service of a copy of the decision of the court. The appellants have filed no exception to the direction of a verdict for the defendant. A motion for a new trial was made and denied, bnt.no appeal was taken from the order made on that appli*433cation. We therefore have no power to review the correctness of the determination of the trial court in directing a verdict for the defendant, but are limited to a consideration of the exceptions taken on the trial. Ainley v. Railway Co., 47 Hun, 206; Dixon v. Dixon, 12 N. Y. St. Rep. 505. The exceptions taken relate solely to the admission of evidence. The appellants in their brief have not argued them, and' we think they are not well taken.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WI-FI ONE, LLC,

Appellant

v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Appellee

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2015-1945

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-

00602.

______________________ 

Decided: April 20, 2018 

______________________ 

 DONALD PUCKETT, Nelson Bumgardner PC, Fort 

Worth, TX, for appellant. Also represented by DOUGLAS 

AARON CAWLEY, McKool Smith, PC, Dallas, TX; PETER J.

AYERS, Law Office of Peter J. Ayers, Austin, TX.
2 WI-FI ONE, LLC v. BROADCOM CORP. 

DOMINIC E. MASSA, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, for appellee. Also represented by 

KEVIN GOLDMAN, KATIE SAXTON. 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

intervenor. Also represented by KAKOLI CAPRIHAN,

BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FRANCES 

LYNCH; JOYCE R. BRANDA, MARK R. FREEMAN, MELISSA N.

PATTERSON, NICHOLAS RILEY, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC.

______________________ 

Before DYK, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissents. 

PER CURIAM. 

The judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is 

AFFIRMED 

REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissents for the reasons stated in 

his dissenting opinion in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom 

Corp., No. 2015-1944 (Fed. Cir. April 20, 2018).
#### Alicia Guastaferro, Appellant, v The Walt Disney Company et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 786]

An appeal having been *668taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about March 30, 2011, and said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due deliberation having been had thereon, and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated April 4, 2012, it is unanimously ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Román, JJ.
Juan VENTURA-VERA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7219.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[No. 36789-7-I.

Division One.

October 13, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Remus Gerald Jordan, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-03253-1, JoAnne Alumbaugh, J., entered June 9, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Grosse, J.
[No. 37004-9-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### Anthony S. Karuza, D.P.M., *Appellant,*v. Law Offices of Paul N. Luvera, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-2-22632-2, Sharon S. Armstrong, J., entered June 27, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred- in by Agid and Becker, JJ.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Mosquito and Fly Research: Gainesville, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Gainesville, Florida Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology Mosquito and Fly Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles  Mosquitoes Show High Resistance to Common InsecticideFeb 13, 2019New Trap Better at Snaring Stable FliesApr 04, 2018USDA Pest Management Program Targets Virus-transmitting MosquitoesFeb 03, 2016Studies Confirm Breadfruit's Ability to Repel InsectsNov 15, 2013Arming U.S. Troops with Insect-protective GearDec 17, 2012Military Uniforms Now Provide Reliable Protection from MosquitoesDec 22, 2008Computer Model for Finding Mosquito Repellent CompoundsMay 28, 2008New Nonchemical Approach to Curbing MosquitoesDec 20, 2007Keeping Mosquitoes Out of Foreign AirspaceApr 04, 2007Partner Sought to Commercialize Patented Fly TrapMar 01, 2007


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### STORY, Respondent, v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 31, 1899.)

Action by Jeremiah T. Story against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the municipal court affirmed, with costs.
#### William Cordes et al., Appellants, v Salvatore Torrisi, Respondent.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered December 12, 1983, in defendant’s favor, upon a jury verdict.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

*814Plaintiffs were injured in a collision when defendant’s automobile went out of control, allegedly because the steering mechanism malfunctioned. The trial court charged the emergency doctrine, over objection, in accordance with 1 PJI 2:14. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

Under the circumstances, the emergency charge was properly given *(Liability of owner or operator of motor vehicle for accident resulting from alleged breaking of or defect in steering mechanism,*Ann., 23 ALR2d 539, 548-549), and the issues were properly submitted to the jury for its resolution (3 Encyclopedia NY Law, Automobiles § 2124). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.