alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fact Sheets

Historical Processing Times Factsheet, FY2016-2024  (PDF, 81.49 KB)

April 01, 2024

Naturalization Statistics

April 01, 2024

Eligible to Naturalize Factsheet: Durham-Chapel Hill, NC  (PDF, 2.94 MB)

March 28, 2024

Eligible to Naturalize Factsheet: San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX  (PDF, 2.99 MB)

March 28, 2024

Eligible to Naturalize Factsheet: Brownsville-Harlingen, TX  (PDF, 3.92 MB)

March 28, 2024

Learn How To Apply for Work Authorization in the United States - EAD Poster  (PDF, 185.92 KB)

October 30, 2023

Guidance on Requesting a Fee Waiver for your Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (Haitian Creole)  (PDF, 158.12 KB)

October 30, 2023

Guidance on Requesting a Fee Waiver for your Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (Russian)  (PDF, 208.18 KB)

October 30, 2023

Guidance on Requesting a Fee Waiver for your Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (WOLOF)  (PDF, 154.53 KB)

October 30, 2023

Guidance on Requesting a Fee Waiver for your Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (Ukrainian)  (PDF, 164.25 KB)

October 30, 2023

1 - 10 total rows

-  Back
- Next**

    RSS Feed  

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
**Exhibit 12.1**CERTIFICATIONSI, Gad Tobaly certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report of InfoVista S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F forthe period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”);2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this Report;4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisReport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this Report any change in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this Report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer 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 oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         By:       /s/ GAD TOBALY    Name: Gad Tobaly    Title:   *Chief Executive Officer*  Date:October 20, 2005
#### Mircea IRIANU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74978.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed Feb. 24, 2011.

Alison Dixon, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mircea Irianu, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board *616of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, *Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156*(9th Cir.2003), and we review de novo due process claims, *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324*F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the significant omission from Irianu’s supplemental declaration that he was beaten during weekly interrogations by the police, see *Kin v. Holder,*595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2010), and based on the discrepancies between Irianu’s testimony and his statements to the asylum officer regarding the reason for the 1994 demonstration and arrest, which go to the heart of his claim, *see Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Irianu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah,*348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Irianu’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Romania, his CAT claim also fails. *Id.*at 1156-57. Irianu’s contention that the BIA and IJ failed to adequately address his CAT claim is belied by the record.

Finally, Irianu’s due process contention fails because the IJ did not err in admitting the asylum officer’s notes and assessment to refer because they contained sufficient indicia of reliability. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation); *cf. Singh, v. Gonzales,*403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          33,773
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                42,583
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    127,654
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         296,934
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           298,423
<LOANS>                                        528,248
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,055,852
<DEPOSITS>                                     950,942
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,180
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,257
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,228
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,055,852
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,921
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               14,536
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,074
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,531
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,073
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,487
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           22,044
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      425
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (46)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 15,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,820
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      10,820
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.76
<LOANS-NON>                                        962
<LOANS-PAST>                                        55
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    85
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,873
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      530
<RECOVERIES>                                       218
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,986
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,986
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               Oct-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         5,210,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 23,752,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      97,000
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              32,530,000
<PP&E>                                        15,154,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                10,000,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                40,428,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13,304,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                      49,772,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (22,662,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  40,428,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             132,140,000
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                126,567,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 650,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               110,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,813,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,803,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,010,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,010,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.34


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Julia BB. and Others, Children Alleged to be Severely Abused. Saratoga County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Diana BB., Respondent. In the Matter of Julia BB. and Others, Children Alleged to be Severely Abused. Saratoga County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Francis BB., Respondent.

Submitted June 5, 2007;

decided June 7, 2007

Motion to vacate stay granted.
chinapedpharmexh10_15.htm








Exhibit 10.15


 


 


EXCLUSIVE OPTION AGREEMENT


 


AMONG


 


XI'AN COOVA CHILDREN PHARMACEUTICALS CO., LTD


 


AND


 


THE NINETEEN PERSONS


 


SHAANXI JIALI PHARMACEUTICALS., LTD


 


August 4, 2008


CHINA
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51110

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR MANUEL PEREZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-470-1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Manuel 

Perez-Gonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez-Gonzalez has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51110 Document: 00514040310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
No. 16-51110

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.

 Case: 16-51110 Document: 00514040310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

S ECOND M EMORANDUM O RDER A BATING A PPEAL

Appellate case name: APTLA, LLC and GATESCO, Inc. v. The City of Baytown

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00678

- CV

Trial court case number: 1156692

Trial court: Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 1

On June 5, 2020, a fire damage d a building at the Laguna Azul Apartments, an apartment complex owned by APTLA , LLC and located in the City of Baytown. A dispute arose between the parties about the permits needed to repair the building.

On September 10, 2020, the trial court granted the City of Baytown ’s request for a temporary injunction, enjoining APTLA from conducting unpermitted construction and ordering APTLA to install a protective fence around the building . APTLA and Gatesco , Inc. appealed the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction

.

While the appeal was pending, the parties attended mediation, reached a tentative settlement, and executed an agreement to seek a ninety

- day abatement of the proceedings in the County Court at Law No. 1 and an abatement of this appeal, while APTLA finishe s repairing the building. On March 22, 2021, APTLA , Gatesco. and t he City jointly moved to abate this appeal for 90 days pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(C) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

.

On March 30, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ joint mo tion, abated the appeal, and treated the appeal as a closed case

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C). The Court also removed the appeal from the Court ’ s active docket. Id . The Court instructed the parties to file a report informing

this Court about the stat us of the appeal and requested any necessary extension of the abatement if the parties had not finalized their settlement by June 29, 2021.

On June 28, 2021, the parties filed a joint status report and moved to extend the abatement of this appeal until September 17, 2021.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion

. The appeal is abated , treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C).

If the settlement has been finalized by Sept ember 17 , 2021 , the parties are instructed to file a motion to reinstate and dismiss the appeal in accordance with their settlement agreement. If theparties have not finalized their settlement by that date, they are instructed to file a report informing

t his Court about the status of the appeal and requesting any necessary extension of the abatement.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Sarah Beth Landau

_____ ___________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 1 , 2021

______________________
# Reporte Estafas de Inmigración

¿Ha sido víctima de una estafa de servicios de inmigración y necesita ayuda? Usted puede reportar fraudes a la Comisión Federal de Comercio. También puede presentar una denuncia en su estado. En la siguiente tabla, hemos incluido información sobre dónde denunciar estafas en su estado, así como enlaces a las leyes que lo protegen.

Recuerde que reportar estafas no afectará su solicitud o petición de inmigración. Además, muchos estados le permiten reportar fraudes anónimamente. Por favor, ayúdenos a detener la práctica no autorizada de la ley de inmigración haciendo frente a los estafadores y denunciándolos.

## Dónde Reportar Estafas en su Estado

**Relevo de responsabilidad:** USCIS recopiló información sobre el estado y el territorio de los sitios web gubernamentales oficiales de los 50 estados de EE. UU., el Distrito de Columbia y los territorios de EE. UU. Aunque intentamos verificar la información contenida en estas listas, no podemos garantizar la precisión de todos los números de teléfono, direcciones web y otra información.

11/02/2020

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kent Garland, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a *329judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kuffner, J.), rendered September 20, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of robbery in the first degree under count five of the indictment and robbery in the second degree under count six of the indictment, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The fifth and sixth counts should not have been submitted to the jury because there was legally insufficient evidence that either the defendant or his accomplice intended to steal Derrick Burton’s pants. Wielding a gun, the defendant ordered Mr. Burton to remove his pants and lay face down on the floor. The defendant and his accomplice then proceeded to rob Ms. Rankine’s art products store. Before fleeing, they deposited Mr. Burton’s pants inside the store by the door.

At the very most, the defendant and his accomplice intended to temporarily deprive Mr. Burton of his pants in an attempt to immobilize him. There was no evidence that the defendant or his accomplice ever intended to permanently appropriate the pants or deprive Mr. Burton of their use *(see,*Penal Law §§ 160.00, 155.05 [1]; § 155.00 [3], [4]; *People v Parker,*96 AD2d 1063; *People v Morris,*39 AD2d 750).

We further find that the Trial Judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding the *Sandoval*motion. Rather, the Judge properly weighed all of the proper considerations before allowing or precluding inquiry regarding the defendant’s past convictions and the underlying facts. Moreover, in light of the defendant’s lengthy criminal record, we find nothing in the record warranting a modification of his sentence. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



I, John C. Doyle, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(i) the Annual Report of Renovis, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



By:

/s/    John C. DoyleName: John C. DoyleTitle: Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer




Dated: March 28, 2005
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

FEBRUARY 16, 2016

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED101986 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V RYAN HUDSON, APP

2. ED102515 IN THE MATTER OF: ISADORE LOWERY

3. ED102574 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V JERRY OUSLEY, APP

4. ED102666 DARRIN M. MCCALL, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

5. ED102770 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V SEAN JONES, APP

6. ED102784 BROOKE BRICKER, RES. V JAMES BRICKER APP.

7. ED102797 ARIEL BLANKENSHIP-YEP, RES V HEYL TRUCK LINES, 

APP

8. ED103050 JACQUELINE N. WALKER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, 

RES

9. ED103109 RAYMOND J. NIXON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
#### SOMMER v. OPPENHEIM.

(City Court of New York,

General Term.

October 30, 1896.)

Action by Rudolph Sommer against Leo Oppenheim.

M. Cohn, for appellant.

A. A. Joseph, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
##### 



Page 10 of 24 Exhibit 99(b) KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A
OFFICERS CERTIFICATE JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., ELT
    
    Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, IT4 New York Plaza, 6th Floor
    
    60 Wall Street, 26th Floor-MS NYC60-2606New York, NY 10004
    
    New York, NY 10007Attn: ITS Global Debt
    
    Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency GroupPhone: (212) 623-5427
    

Structured FinanceFax: (212) 623-5933
    
    Phone: (212) 250-8522Fax: (212) 797-8606KeyBank National Association
    
    MBIA Insurance Corporation800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor
    
    113 King StreetCleveland, OH 44114
    
    Armonk, NY 10504Attn: President, KER
    
    Attn: Data AdministrationPhone: (216) 828-4293
    
    Phone: (914) 765-3772Fax: (216) 828-9301
    
    Fax: (914) 765-3810
 Pursuant to Section 3.08 of the Subservicing Agreement between KeyBank National Association,
successor in interest to Key Bank USA, National Association as Master Servicer and Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency, as Subservicer, dated as of June 1, 2000 (the Agreement), the
undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of PHEAA as Subservicer from
January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and of its performance under the Agreement has been
made, and (ii) to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, based on the review, PHEAA as
Subservicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period. The undersigned also hereby certifies that the Subservicer has disclosed to the Master Servicer and
to the Trusts certified public accountants all significant deficiencies relating to the
Subservicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards in accordance with a review conducted
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar standard
as set forth in the Agreement. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSISTANCE AGENCY, SubservicerDate: February 22, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /S/ RICHARD E. WILLEYName:
    
    Richard E. WilleyTitle:
    
    President and CEO