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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

OLUWAFEMI IJOGUN, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 03-1233

JOHN ASHCROFT,

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A22-202-239)

Submitted: September 29, 2003

Decided: October 28, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Richard W. Moore, Sr., Towson, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant

Director, Barry J. Pettinato, Office of Immigration Litigation,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Oluwafemi Ijogun, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions this

court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order

affirming the immigration judge’s decision that Ijogun had abandoned

his permanent resident alien status prior to reentering the United

States and thus was subject to removal. Ijogun argues the immigration

judge misapplied the relevant burden of proof in reaching this conclusion and that the evidence did not support this finding. For the following reasons, we deny Ijogun’s petition for review. 

First, we are unpersuaded that Ijogun preserved his objection to the

immigration judge’s characterization of the relevant burden of proof.

Although the immigration judge indicated during Ijogun’s hearing

that the burden was on Ijogun to contest removability once the United

States had made a "prima facie case" of abandonment, the record does

not reflect an objection to this formulation either before the immigration judge or the BIA. Hence, review of this alleged error is waived.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). 

Second, even if review of Ijogun’s objection is appropriate, the

materials in the joint appendix provide clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Ijogun abandoned his permanent resident status,

such that he did not qualify as a returning resident alien. See Woodby

v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 286 (1966) (providing standard); Khodagholian

v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003). The immigration

judge’s findings, which Ijogun has failed to contradict with compelling evidence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000), demonstrate

Ijogun’s substantial ties to Nigeria and a dearth of ties to the United

States, despite the fact that Ijogun received permanent resident status

in 1984. Hence, Ijogun fails to demonstrate that the immigration

judge’s abandonment determination is "manifestly contrary to law."

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C) (2000). 

Accordingly, Ijogun’s petition for review is denied. 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.

PETITION DENIED

2 IJOGUN v. ASHCROFT
Exhibit 23.3



                         Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
Trigon Healthcare, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-22463) on Form S-8 of Trigon Healthcare, Inc. of our report dated April 24,
1998, relating to the statements of financial condition, with fund information,
of the Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield 401(k) Restoration Plan as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and the related statements of income and changes in plan equity,
with fund information, for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1997, which report is included in this Form 10-K/A No. 1 of Trigon
Healthcare, Inc.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Richmond, Virginia
April 29, 1998
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

CECILE FOY GSANGER NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

Thursday, September 03, 2015

Hon. Travis W. Berry

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 6333

Corpus Christi, TX 78466

- 6333

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Jose L. Aliseda

Bee County District Attorney

111 S. St. Mary's St., Ste. 203

Beeville, TX 78102

* DELIVERED VI A E

- MAIL * Ms. Carmina Padroz

#01994822

Plane State Jail

904 F. M. 686

Dayton, TX 77535

Re: Cause No. 13

- 15

- 00195

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. L

- 00

- 0078

- 2

- CR

- B

Style: Carmina Padroz v. The State of Texas

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the C ourt on this date

.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch

Enc.

cc: 1 56 th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

Hon. Melanie Matkin , Live Oak County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JASON ISAAC WEST,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 405 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 21
                              List of Subsidiaries


Q.E.P. Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation, owns 100% of the issued and
outstanding shares of stock/units of the following entities:

1.       Roberts Consolidated Industries Inc., a Delaware corporation, which
         owns 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of stock/units of the
         following entities:

         (i)      Roberts Japan KK (Inactive)
         (ii)     Roberts Company Canada Limited, a Canadian corporation
         (iii)    Roberts Holding International Inc., a Delaware corporation

2.       Q.E.P.-O'Tool, Inc., a California corporation

3.       Boiardi Products Corporation, an Ohio corporation

4.       Marion Tool Corporation (Inactive), an Indiana corporation, which owns
         100% of the issued and outstanding shares of stock of the following
         entity:

         (i)      Westpoint Foundry, Inc. (Inactive), an Indiana corporation

5.       Q.E.P. Stone Holdings Inc., a Florida corporation

6.       Q.E.P. Zocalis Holding L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company,
         which owns 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of stock/units of
         the following entities

         (i)      Q.E.P. Zocalis Srl, an Argentinean entity

7.       Q.E.P. Chile Limitada, a Chilean entity.

8.       Q.E.P. AUST. PTY. LIMITED, an Australian entity, which owns 100% of the
         issued and outstanding shares of stock/units of the following entities:

         (i)      Q.E.P. CO. AUST. PTY. LIMITED, an Australian entity


<PAGE>


9.       Q.E.P. Holding B.V., a Holland entity, which owns 100% of the issued
         and outstanding shares of stock of the following entity:

         (i)      Roberts Holland B.V., which owns 100% of the issued and
                  outstanding shares of stock/units of the following entities:

                  (a)      Roberts S.A.R.L., a French entity
                  (b)      Roberts Germany GmbH, a German entity
                  (c)      Roberts U.K. Limited, a United Kingdom entity

10.      Q.E.P. Co. New Zealand Limited, a New Zealand entity
#### LEVY, Respondent, v. KOTTMAN, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Morris Levy against Elizabeth E. Kottman.

Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and McCARTHY, JJ.

L. S. Goebel, for appellant.

J. L. Weinberg, for respondent.

McCARTHY, J.

This is an action for broker’s commission under employment to procure a purchaser for real estate. The complaint sets up employment of plaintiff to sell No. 204 Delaneey street, in the city of New York, for the usual commission of 1 per cent.; that he procured a purchaser, who paid to the defendant $50 on the purchase price of $25,500 for the parcel; that plaintiff earned his commission of $255. The answer denied the employment of plaintiff, that he procured a purchaser, that the purchaser agreed to buy, and that he paid $50 on account of the purchase price, but alleges that she received $50 on June 5, 1892, from a stranger, for the option to buy the property on the next day, but that the stranger never came back to complete the sale, and pleads conspiracy and collusion between the purchaser and broker to defraud her out of $205,—the amount being the difference between the commission sued for and the $50 she admitted that she received. The evidence sufficiently shows the employment of the plaintiff by the defendant’s husband, and her authority and ratification of the same. There is also evidence of the procuring of the purchaser by the plaintiff, and his ability to carry out the contract. These being questions of fact, and the same having been submitted to the jury under proper instructions, and they having found for the plaintiff, it is conclusive on us. We find no error, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EAGLE USA AIRFREIGHT, INC. FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q REPORT
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          26,174
<SECURITIES>                                     2,679
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                       566
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,771
<PP&E>                                          19,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,627
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,926
<SALES>                                         97,645              
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,645             
<CGS>                                           53,607          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,654  
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,764  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,890
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,890
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.31
        

</TABLE>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus D ismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

July 12 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 22
- 00043
- CV

IN RE FAST TRAC TRAN SPORTATION, L . L . C . , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 281st District Court Harri s County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 2021
- 44126


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 25, 2022 , relator Fast Trac Transportation, L

. L

. C

. filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, r elator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Christin e Weems, presiding judge of the 281st District Court of Harris County , to vacate the trial court ’ s October 25, 2021 order granting Defendant Tri Element ’s,2

Inc.’s motion for leave to file l e tter of credit in lieu of surety bond and January 2, 2022 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider

. On June 2 9, 2022, re lator filed an unopposed voluntary withdrawal of its petition for writ of mandamus . Accordi ngly, we grant relator ’ s motion and d i smiss relator ’ s petition fo r writ of mandamus

. PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christo pher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
**Basin Data****  % Median Precipitation      **  % Median SWE      **Reservoir Data****  Storage      **  Pool Elevation      **  Inflow      **  Release              Updated: June 03, 2024 14:10**  Price/San Rafael Basins
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Mark P. Mellin, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ILEX Oncology, Inc;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 7, 2004
/s/ MARK P. MELLINMark P. Mellin
Ex parte Mark Alvear – BRIEF FOR APPEALLANT Page 15

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this document Appellant's Brief was prepared with Microsoft 

Word 2013, and that, according to that program’s word-count function, the 

sections covered by TRAP 9.4(i)(1) contain 1,060 words.

__________/s/ Christopher L King_______________

Christopher L King

ACCEPTED

06-15-00131-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/16/2015 7:25:03 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/16/2015 7:25:03 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. McNulty                 
|John E. McNulty                     
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|November 8, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018747
<NAME> WOODCREST GOLF CLUB, INC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          10,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,478
<INVENTORY>                                     40,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               267,967
<PP&E>                                       3,723,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                 580,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,411,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,636
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     416,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,411,816
<SALES>                                        380,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,702,300
<CGS>                                          185,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,554,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                17,727
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                136,910
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            136,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   136,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2010107EN.01002001.xml

| 29.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 107/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 107/20

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 April 2010

appointing one Austrian member and one Austrian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2010/242/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Herbert SAUSGRUBER. An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Markus WALLNER as a member of the Committee of the Regions, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Herbert SAUSGRUBER. An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Markus WALLNER as a member of the Committee of the Regions,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| (a) | as member:






  — | Herr Landesstatthalter Mag. Markus WALLNER, Stellvertretender Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg (change of mandate), |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as member:

—

Herr Landesstatthalter Mag. Markus WALLNER, Stellvertretender Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg (change of mandate),

and

| (b) | as alternate member:






  — | Frau Landtagspräsidentin Dr. Bernadette MENNEL, Präsidentin des Vorarlberger Landtags. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as alternate member:

—

Frau Landtagspräsidentin Dr. Bernadette MENNEL, Präsidentin des Vorarlberger Landtags.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.

For the Council

The President

M. Á. MORATINOS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22 and OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sam Williams, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered July 29, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Tomei, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the warrantless arrest in his home and the seizure of a gun found therein violated his constitutional rights. The hearing court properly found that the warrantless arrest was due to exigent circumstances *(see, Dorman v United States,*435 F2d 385, 392; *People v Gordon,*110 AD2d 778, 780; *People v Green,*103 AD2d 362, 363-364) and that the gun was properly seized in the search as incidental to the lawful arrest *(see, People v Knapp,*52 NY2d 689).

Under the circumstances of this case we also reject the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see, People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.