alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Anray Lasard Woodard v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00063

- CR

Trial court case number: 11DCR057114A

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Our complete review of the above

- referenced appeal requires the court reporter’s

transcription of the voir dire and punishment hearing portions of the trial. Accordingly, we order

the court reporter to prepare, ce rtify, and file a supplemental reporter’s record containing the voir

dire and punishment hearing no later than 20 days from the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 17, 2013
## COURT OF APPEALS SECO ND DISTRICT OF T EXAS FORT WORTH N O
. 2

- 0 9

- 3 8 8

- C V E S T A T E O F B O B B Y J O E T I P T O N , D E C E A S E D

- - - - - - - - - - F R O M C O U N T Y C O U R T A T L A W N O
. 2 O F P A R K E R C O U N T Y

- - - - - - - - - - 

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 1 

### A N D J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d “ A p p e l l a n t , M a r i l y n G a r n e r , T r u s t e e O f T h e B a n k r u p t c y E s t a t e O f J o s e p h W e l d o n A n d T h e n a K e n n e d y ’ s M o t i o n T o D i s m i s s A p p e a l
. ” I t i s t h e c o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d b e g r a n t e d ; t h e r e f o r e , w e d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l
. S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 2
. 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 4 3
. 2 ( f )

. C o s t s o f t h e a p p e a l s h a l l b e p a i d b y a p p e l l a n t , f o r w h i c h l e t e x e c u t i o n i s s u e . S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 2
. 1 ( d )

.

P E R C U R I A M P A N E L : D A U P H I N O T , G A R D N E R , a n d W A L K E R , J J
. D E L I V E R E D : J a n u a r y 2 1 , 2 0 1 0

1

 S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 7
. 4
.
#### MING GUANG LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70839.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 21, 2011.

Ming Guang Lin, Bellflower, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristina Rencic Sracic, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ming Guang Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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 the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. *See id.*at 1042-44 (adverse credibility findings must be “specific and cogent” and the IJ must consider petitioner’s explanation for a perceived inconsistency); *Tekle v. Mukasey,*533 F.3d 1044, 1053 (9th Cir.2008) (adverse credibility finding based on mischaracterization of testimony is not supported); *Shah v. INS,*220 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir.2000) (an ad*742verse credibility finding cannot be based on speculation and conjecture).

We remand for the BIA to reexamine Lin’s credibility and, if necessary, to assess the IJ’s alternate holding denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims on the merits. *See INS v. Ventura, 537*U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); *Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555*F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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



Certification of the Chief Executive Officer 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 Annual Report of Harbor Global Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen G. Kasnet, 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 to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.



Dated:    March 26, 2004



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/    STEPHEN G.
KASNET                 
|Stephen G. Kasnet Chief Executive Officer



This certification
accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUAR-D

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

GEORGE BABBIN

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-01 12

Enforcement Activity No. 7644000

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: March 28.2023

Bv Administrative Law Judse: Honorable Timothv G, Stueve

Appearances:

Paul Taylor

USCG Sector San Francisco

For the Coast Guard

George Babbin, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about March 24, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated March 28 , 2023 , at

Alameda, California

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard

ffi;;x
#### KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and King Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Pharmaceutical IP Holding, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANDOZ INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2011-1227.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 1, 2011.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The appellants move to withdraw their appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
**EXHIBIT 12.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Antonio Luiz Pizarro Manso, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Embraer –EmpresaBrasileira de Aeronáutica S.A.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the companyand have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thecompany’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: June 30, 2004By:/s/ Antonio Luiz Pizarro Manso  Name: Antonio Luiz Pizarro Manso  Title: Executive Vice-President Corporate and ChiefFinancial Officer
EXHIBIT 10.2
                              PROMISSORY NOTE

$750.00                                               Santa Ana, California
                                                           November 2, 2001

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Saiph Corporation at
1515 Brookhollow Drive, Suite D, Santa Ana, CA 92705, or at such other place
as the holder hereof may designate in writing, the sum of seven hundred fifty
dollars ($750.00), with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from
the date hereof.  Principal and interest shall be due and payable upon
demand.

     Prepayment of this note may be made at any time without penalty.

     In the event of commencement of suit to enforce payment of this note,
the undersigned agrees to pay such additional sum as attorney's fees as the
court may adjudge reasonable.

                                   Whitelight Technologies, Inc.

                                   By: /s/ Eric Chess Bronk
                                       Eric Chess Bronk, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001001907
<NAME>                        SPACEHAB, Inc.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                         79,856,749
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,091,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               89,102,047
<PP&E>                                         96,244,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                 40,683,502
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,896,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,396,933
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       81,123,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,896,758
<SALES>                                        17,755,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,755,687
<CGS>                                          7,919,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,950,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,175,542
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,805,236
<INCOME-TAX>                                   78,461
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,726,775
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,726,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.43
        


</TABLE>
Assignment Agreement dated on January 4, 2008



 Exhibit 10.9 
 Assignment Agreement 
 This Assignment Agreement is made on the date
of January 4, 2008, by and among HK Frank Education Investment and Management Limited, a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong (“HK Frank”), Michael Qu a citizen of Singapore, Min Hu, a citizen of PRC,
Zhengmao Hu, a citizen of PRC. 
 WHEREAS, Michael Qu actually loaned Min Hu and Zhengmao Hu in the amount of RMB 15,000,000 for establishment
of Beijing Frank Education Investment and Management Co., Ltd in 2004. 
 WHEREAS, after HK Frank was established, Michael Qu assigns HK Frank
his creditor rights due from Min Hu and Zhengmao Hu in the amount of RMB 15,000,000. 
 It is agreed as follows: 
  

	1.	Michael Qu loaned Min Hu and Zhengmao Hu in the amount of RMB15,000,000 in 2004, and, 

  

	2.	Michael Qu agrees to assign HK Frank his creditor rights due from Min Hu and Zhengmao Hu in the amount of RMB 15,000,000. HK Frank hereby confirms to accept such
assignment. HK Frank’s outstanding payment to Michael Qu is RMB15,000,000 with interests-free and no securities for twenty years. 

  

	3.	This Assignment Agreement became effective upon due execution. 

 Signature: 
 HK Frank Education Investment and Management Limited (with Chop) 

Michael Qu /s/ 
 Min Hu
/s/ 
 Zhengmao Hu /s/
#### HAYES, Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED GASLIGHT CO. OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 9, 1894.)

Action by Margaret Hayes, administratrix, etc., against the Consolidated Gaslight Company of New York.

Argued before DALY, C. J., and BISCHOFF and PRYOR, JJ.

Wingate & Cullen, for appellant.

Lord, Day & Lord, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome WEATHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30888

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 2011.

Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nicole O’Brien Snyder, U.S. At*367torney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Angela Barbera Odinet, LaFayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerome Weathington appeals his 60-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6). He argues that the district court selected a sentence based on the clearly erroneous fact that he was the sole aggressor in a fight with a fellow inmate and therefore his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. He asserts that he was not the sole aggressor because he acted in self-defense. Because the jury rejected the argument that Weathington acted in self-defense, Weathington cannot show that the district court plainly erred in its factual findings. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Weathington also argues that his history and characteristics and the nature and circumstances of the offense do not support his sentence because he acted in self-defense. He has not shown that his sentence did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represented a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. *See United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1930, 176 L.Ed.2d 397 (2010). As a result, he has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-the-guidelines sentence on appellate review. *See United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.2008). Weathington has therefore failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and to appoint substitute counsel based on her acceptance of employment with the District Attorney’s Office is GRANTED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1996 and 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> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             23
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                     541<F1> 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       26
<INVENTORY>                                       629 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,336       
<PP&E>                                          1,519      
<DEPRECIATION>                                    681    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,799      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             698    
<BONDS>                                         1,107  
<COMMON>                                           55 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                        773       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,799         
<SALES>                                         4,387          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,387          
<CGS>                                           3,479          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   4,815<F2>          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (5)       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   10      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 19       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (428)<F2>       
<INCOME-TAX>                                       50      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (478)<F2>      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    (478)<F2> 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (8.70)<F2><F3> 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0<F4>
<FN>

<F1> Gross
 
<F2> Net loss includes a charge of $550 million for the write-down of goodwill 
     and other non-recurring costs of a pretax amount of $96 million, primarily
     for facility consolidations and other asset write-downs.

<F3> Common shares are based on the weighted average number of shares 
     outstanding subsequent to the distribution on September 30, 1996, assuming 
     the shares issued in connection with the distribution had been issued 
     January 1.

<F4> Information not applicable.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Part N, National Institutes of Health, of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (40 FR 22859, May 27, 1975, as amended most recently at 64 FR 49018, September 9, 1999, and redesignated from Part NH as Part N at 60 FR 56606, November 9, 1995), is amended as set forth below to reflect the establishment of the Office of Bioengineering and Bioimaging in the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health.

*Section N-B, Organization and Functions,*                     is amended as follows: (1) After the heading                     *Executive Office (NAR, formerly HNAR),*                     insert the following:                

*Office of Bioengineering and Bioimaging (NAC, formerly HNAC).*                     (1) Increases biological knowledge and facilities development of novel methods, devices, and pharmaceuticals through the use of engineering, physical, and computational science principles and techniques; (2) coordinates and provides a focus for biomedical engineering, bioimaging, and bioinformatics issues among the institutes and centers at the NIH and with other Federal agencies; (3) conducts activities aimed at fostering new basic understandings and collaborations among the biological, medical, engineering, physical, and computational sciences; (4) coordinates trans-NIH bioengineering, bioimaging, and bioinformatics research programs; (5) develops transdisciplinary training and career development opportunities between the engineering/physical/computational science and biomedical communities; and (6) conducts symposia and technical meetings to facilitate communication and                           ( print page 20478)                        dissemination of information among different technical disciplines.                

Dated: April 5, 2000.

Ruth Kirschstein,

Acting Director, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 00-9431  Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M