alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6532

MICHAEL HOWARD FREAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JUDGE ALDEN, Circuit Court of Fairfax, Virginia Public Defenders Office; ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-97-1759-AM)

Submitted: August 31, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Howard Freas, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Freas v. Alden, No. CA-97-1759-AM (E.D. Va.

Mar. 17, 1998). We deny Appellant’s motion for the production of

transcripts at government expense. 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 17, 2018

No. 04-18-00461-CV

INT OF S.K.K AND H.A.K. CHILDREN,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-2718-CV

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record for this appeal has filed 

a notification of late record, stating that the reporter’s record has not been filed because appellant 

has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record and has

failed request the record in writing. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written 

proof to this court within ten days of the date of this order that: (1) either (a) the reporter’s fee 

has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (b) appellant is 

entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee; and (2) the appellant has requested the court 

reporter to prepare the reporter’s record, which request must designate the portions of the 

proceedings and the exhibits to be included. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(1). If appellant fails to 

respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the 

date of the clerk’s record is filed, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in 

appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

37.3(c).

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of August, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Balance Sheet or
Statement of Income are reported as 0 herein.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                               1,122
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                           311
<INVENTORY>                                          9,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    21,711
<PP&E>                                              15,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                       4,356
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      32,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,720
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             9,786
<OTHER-SE>                                          20,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        32,829
<SALES>                                             50,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    50,647
<CGS>                                               29,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       39,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        88
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     11,377
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4,107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7,270
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7,270
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.190
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.188
        


</TABLE>
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Infitech Ventures Inc. - Exhibit 10.14






PROMISSORY NOTE 

 

	Name of Borrower: 	Infitech Ventures Inc.
  
	  	20 Lyall Avenue 
	  	Toronto Ontario, Canada M4E
      1V9 


 


	Name of Lender: 	Paul G. Daly 
	 	20 Lyall
      Avenue  
	  	Toronto Ontario, Canada M4E
      1V9 



 

	 	1. 	
      For value received, Borrower agrees to pay the Lender
      the amount of $US 800.00 on a date to be determined. Payment will be sent
      to the Lender at 20 Lyall Avenue, Toronto Ontario Canada M4E 1V9. The loan
      is unsecured, non interest bearing and payable on demand. Payment can be
      made in cash or common stock with any stock repayment subject to
      requirements imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



 

Dated at the City of Toronto this
30th day of September, 2009. 


	Signature of Borrower or authorized signatory of
      Corporation 	/s/ Paul G.
      Daly 
	 	 
	 	 
	Name of authorized signatory of Corporation 	PAUL G. DALY 
	 	 
	 	 
	Name of Corporation 	INFITECH VENTURES INC.
#### Eliot Oswaldo POCASANGRE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70629.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Sylvia L. Esparza, Esquire, Law Office of Sylvia L. Esparza, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.

Jesse Matthew Bless, Oil, David V. Ber-nal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Eliot Oswaldo Pocasangre, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir.2009), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, *Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in finding that Pocasangre failed to establish the seven years of continuous physical presence required under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(b)(2) to be eligible for derivative special rule cancellation of removal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1240.61(a)(4); *Barrios,*581 F.3d at 858-59.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Poeasangre’s request to remand to the IJ to apply for asylum where he had not applied for asylum before the IJ and failed to demonstrate that he sought relief based on circumstances that arose subsequent to his hearing. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *Romero-Ruiz,*538 F.3d at 1063-64.

We lack jurisdiction to review Poca-sangre’s remaining contentions because he failed to raise them before the agency. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the agency).

*435PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906				OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This certification is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification is included solely for the purpose of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not to be used for any other purpose. In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2005, I, Lisa R. Powell, hereby certify in my capacity as an officer of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. that to my knowledge:

     1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2005, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc.			Date:  September 13, 2005                                                   /s/ Lisa R. Powell                 			                                                                                            Lisa R. Powell,  President,			                                                                                            Executive, Financial and			                                                                                            Accounting Officer)

----
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30098

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JONATHAN JERMAINE GUILLORY, also known as J-Rock,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CR-20098-3

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jonathan Jermaine Guillory has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Guillory has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 25, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-30098 Document: 00511120381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2010
(23 Misc. Rep. 125.)

#### CONROY v. ALLEN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 28, 1898.)

1. Appeal—Review.

The appellate term of the supreme court will not disturb the conclusion of the trial justice upon a question of fact, unless it is manifest that it was against the weight of evidence.

2. Same.

The appellate court, having no opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses or the manner in which they gave their testimony, is seldom in a position to satisfactorily reviaw a decision upon the facts where the determination of the case rests upon a question of credibility.

Appeal from Second district court.

Action by John H. Conroy against Frank S. Allen. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGEBICH, JJ.

William L. Stone, Jr., for appellant.

I. Newton Williams, for respondent.

BEEKMAN, P. J.

The only question involved in this appeal is one of fact, and the rule is well established that this court will not disturb the conclusion of the trial justice upon such a question, unless it is manifest that it was against the weight of evidence. After a careful examination of the proofs, we are unable to find that such was the case here. The determination of the facts required the trial justice to pass upon the veracity of the witnesses. He had them before him, and observed their demeanor on the witness stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimony. These are matters which may be legitimately considered where such a question is to be determined; but, from the nature of the case, they are not susceptible. of reproduction in the minutes of the trial. The appellate court is therefore seldom in a position to satisfactorily review a decision upon the facts where the determination of the case rests upon a question of credibility. We therefore feel constrained to affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
**Exhibit 12.1**
I, Roger Agnelli, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Companhia Vale Do Rio Doce; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 2, 2005                                       /s/ Roger Agnelli   Name:  Roger Agnelli   Title:  Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

This certification is notto be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of UTStarcom, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).

 

In connection with theReport, we, Peter Blackmore and Viraj J. Patel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 
|        | (i)    |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Company. |

 

Dated: May 8,2009

 
| By:    | /s/ PETER BLACKMORE                          |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Peter Blackmore                        |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer and President |
|   |                                         |
| By:    | /s/ VIRAJ J. PATEL                           |   |
|   | Name: Viraj J. Patel                         |
|   | Title: Interim Chief Financial Officer       |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         174,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  803,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                    52,200
<INVENTORY>                                  1,267,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,394,839
<PP&E>                                         426,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                 157,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,885,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          621,940
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                         4,496
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,052,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,885,041
<SALES>                                      1,226,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,226,143
<CGS>                                          928,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  928,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,924,172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (1,626,855)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,692,765)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,692,765)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,692,765)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,692,765)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.82)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
REGISTRANTS AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND FOR THE
YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,761
<SECURITIES>                                       100
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                        80
<INVENTORY>                                      2,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,090
<PP&E>                                          13,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,429
<SALES>                                         24,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,986
<CGS>                                           10,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    26
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,648
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,538
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,110
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,110
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .86
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135842 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135842 

 COA: 279206 

Berrien CC: 2002-400252-FC 

RAYMOND LEE KYLE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk