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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Nov. 16, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12387

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00070-CR-CLS-RRA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CIRILO RODRIGUEZ-MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(November 16, 2009)

Before BLACK, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Cirilo Rodriguez-Martin, who conditionally pleaded guilty to reentering the

United States illegally, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), appeals the denial of his motion to

dismiss his indictment based on defects in his underlying removal proceedings.

See id. § 1326(d). Rodriguez-Martin argues that his removal proceedings were

“perfunctory” and his removal was ordered “on the mistaken assumption” that he

had been convicted of an aggravated felony. We affirm.

We review de novo the denial of Rodriguez’s collateral challenge to his

prior removal proceedings. United States v. Zelaya, 293 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th

Cir. 2002). To prevail, Rodriguez-Martin had to prove that he had exhausted

administrative remedies available to him to seek relief from the order of removal,

he was deprived of an opportunity for judicial review during the removal

proceedings, and “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” Id. at 1298.

Rodriguez-Martin failed to satisfy these requirements.

Rodriguez-Martin declined to avail himself of administrative remedies or

pursue opportunities for judicial review of the order of removal. Rodriguez-Martin

failed to challenge the administrative closure of his appeal to the Board of

Immigration Appeals and, even after the Board reinstated the appeal, RodriguezMartin did not appear in the proceeding or move for reconsideration after the

Board dismissed his appeal. Rodriguez-Martin also did not seek a rescission of the

2
order of removal. See id. at 1297. The district court did not err by denying

Rodriguez-Martin’s motion to dismiss his indictment.

Rodriguez-Martin’s conviction is AFFIRMED.

3
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
 Grand Forks, North Dakota
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Grand Forks, North Dakota People & Locations







Debra  Fossum
                        Grand Forks, North Dakota

                        




                        
                        Non-Federal Affiliate
                        Phone: (701) 795-8387
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
CASE NO. 01–14–00170–CV 

 

 

IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

_____________________________________________ 

 

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 

 

V. 

 

PATRIOT BANK 

_____________________________________________ 

 

On Appeal from the 61st Judicial District Court of 

Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2012–47633 

_____________________________________________ 

 

PATRIOT BANK’S SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF 

APPEALS: 

Patriot Bank requests a 4–day extension to file its motion for 

rehearing and for good cause, would show as follows: 

1. The Court issued its opinion on May 12, 2015. Patriot Bank’s 

motion for rehearing is due on June 11, 2015. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00170-cv

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/11/2015 6:53:43 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/11/2015 6:53:43 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

2. This is Patriot Bank’s second request to extend the deadline for 

filing its motion for rehearing. The first extension granted by the Court 

was for 15 days.

3. The demands of the undersigned’s litigation docket during the last 

15 days have prevented him from completing Patriot Bank’s motion for 

rehearing, which include:

 Preparing and filing a brief on the merits with the Texas 

Supreme Court on May 29, 2015, in the case–styled and 

numbered Morrison v. Whispering Pines Lodge I, LLP, Case 

No. 14–0318.

 Preparing and filing a brief on June 5, 2015 in the case–

styled and numbered, Phillips Development Realty, LLC v. 

LJA Engineering, LLC, Case No. 14–14–00858–CV.

 Preparing a brief on the merits to be filed with the Texas 

Supreme Court on June 12, 2015, in the case–styled and 

numbered, Worldwide Clinical Trials v. Arnold, Case No. 

14–0786.

4. The undersigned’s wife will also be going out of town on June 11, 

which will require the undersigned to stay home on June 12 with his 

children.

5. Under TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3, the undersigned conferred with 

counsel for the First American, and counsel is unopposed to this motion.
3

FOR THESE REASONS, Patriot Bank prays that this Honorable 

Court grant this First Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Motion for Rehearing, extend the deadline for filing the same to June 

15, 2015, and grant all other relief to which Patriot Bank may be 

entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

LEYH, PAYNE & MALLIA, PLLC

By: /s/ Sean M. Reagan

Sean Michael Reagan

sreagan@lpmfirm.com

Texas Bar No. 24046689

9545 Katy Freeway, Suite 200

Houston, Texas 77024

Telephone: 713-785-0881

Facsimile: 713-784-0884

 
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has 

been served to all interested parties of record on this the 11th day of 

June 2015:

Tim McDaniel

Kelly Conklin

Irelan McDaniel, PLLC

440 Louisiana, Suite 1800

Houston, Texas 77002

Don Colleluori

Mark T. Davenport

Figari & Davenport, LLP

901 Main Street, LB 125

Dallas, Texas 75202

/s/ Sean M. Reagan

Sean M. Reagan
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2012 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2012

     To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in 
  Gainsville, Florida, as the ``Malcom Randall Department of Veterans 
                       Affairs Medical Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 30, 1998

 Mr. Graham (for himself and Mr. Mack) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in 
  Gainsville, Florida, as the ``Malcom Randall Department of Veterans 
                       Affairs Medical Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL 
              CENTER, GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Gainesville, 
Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Malcom Randall 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Joan Stufano, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Pasquale Stufano, Deceased, Respondent, v Keene Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York et al., Third-Party Defendants. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York et al., Third-Party Defendants.

No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Milonas and Rosenberger, 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
 Manhattan, Kansas
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Judith  Smith
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        FIN & BUDG TECHN
                        Phone: (215) 435-3349
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### Serli GUNCORO; Aswanto, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70958.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 21, 2011.

Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Serli Guncoro, lead petitioner, and As-wanto, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, *Cano-Merida v.*
      *213
      *INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s April 29, 2008, order vacating an immigration judge’s grant of asylum, because Gun-coro failed to timely petition this court for review of that decision. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

The BIA was within its discretion in denying the November 17, 2008, motion to reconsider on the ground that the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s April 29, 2008, order. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

We reject Guncoro’s contention that the case should be remanded in light of *Tampubolon v. Holder,*610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010). The BIA analyzed Guneoro’s claims of persecution as an ethnic Chinese Indonesian under the disfavored group analysis, as set forth in *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.2004), and Guncoro does not now argue — nor did she argue to the agency — that she experienced any individualized risk due to her Christianity.

Guncoro contends the BIA erred in denying her applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture without allowing her an opportunity to brief the issues. Contrary to Guncoro’s contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, Guncoro failed to demonstrate that additional development of the record may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. *See id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
(5 App. Div. 48)

#### FLEET v. CRONIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May, 1896.)

Discovery—Premature Application.

An application for a discovery should be denied where the complaint was amended after the answer was served, as the service of the amended complaint destroyed the issues raised by the original pleadings.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Irene A. Fleet against Helen M. Cronin, as executrix of the will of Timothy C. Cronin, deceased. From an order requiring defendant to make discovery of certain papers, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

I. Newton Williams, for appellant.

L. A. Gould, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This motion was made after issue joined to ob-

tain a discovery and inspection for use by the plaintiff upon the trial. After the motion was noticed, an amended complaint was served, to which it does not appear that any answer has been interposed. As the service of an amended complaint destroys the issues raised by the original pleadings, and as the defendant has not joined issue upon the amended complaint by serving an answer, the motion should have been denied; it having been many times held that, until the cause is at issue, the application for discovery of books and papers for use upon the trial is premature.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs, but with leave to plaintiff after issue joined to renew the motion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         139,681
<SECURITIES>                                     5,012
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,774
<INVENTORY>                                     45,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               309,097
<PP&E>                                       1,803,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,472,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          375,744
<BONDS>                                      2,783,041
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                           229
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,507,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,472,439
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               332,938
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  247,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               400,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             227,495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (863,212)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (307,192)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (556,020)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (556,020)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.50)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.10

Directors' Compensation

     Each non-employee  director of Zoom receives a fee of $500 per quarter plus
a fee of $500 for each  meeting at which the  director  is  personally  present.
Travel and lodging expenses are also reimbursed.

     Each  non-employee  director of Zoom is also granted  stock  options  under
Zoom's 1991 Directors Stock Option Plan, as amended (the "Directors  Plan"). The
Directors  Plan  provides in the aggregate  that 450,000  shares of Common Stock
(subject to adjustment  for capital  changes) may be issued upon the exercise of
options   granted  under  the  Directors  Plan.   Each   non-employee   director
automatically  receives an option to purchase  12,000  shares of Common Stock on
January 10 and July 10 of each year. The exercise price for the options  granted
under the  Directors  Plan is the fair market  value of the Common  Stock on the
date the option is granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1694 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1694

      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain textile machines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 1998

 Mr. Coverdell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain textile machines.

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

SECTION 1. TEXTILE MACHINES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
    

         ``    9902.84.45     Textile doubling                                                                  
                               or twisting                                                                      
                               machines                                                                         
                               (provided for in                                                                 
                               subheading                                                                       
                               8445.30.00).....  Free          No change      No change       On or before      
                                                                                               12/31/99         
                                                                                                                

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the date that is 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Retroactive Application.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper request 
filed with the Customs Service not later than 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for 
consumption, of goods described in subheading 9902.84.45 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (as added by subsection 
(a))--
            (1) that was made after December 31, 1997, and before the 
        date that is 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act; 
        and
            (2) with respect to which there would have been no duty if 
        the amendment made by subsection (a) applied to such entry or 
        withdrawal,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such amendment applied to 
such entry or withdrawal.
                                 <all>
```
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
 Stoneville, Mississippi
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Charles  Kingdom
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        SUPPLY CLERK
                        Phone: (662) 686-5496
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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