alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60156

Summary Calendar

CARLOS CORTINA,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 684 654

Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Carlos Cortina, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) order of removal and 

denial of discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of removal under 8 

U.S.C. § 1229b. Cortina contends the IJ and BIA erred in finding he did not 

satisfy the exceptional-and-extremely-unusual-hardship standard for 

 

* 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

July 5, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60156 Document: 00514059195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2017
No. 16-60156

2

cancellation of removal. He contends: the IJ failed to consider all the factors 

in his case; his case does present a compelling case of exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship to his children; and the IJ applied a different 

standard of unconscionable hardship. Cortina further asserts the IJ failed to: 

inquire about the health of his children; consider the “separation of family” 

factor; or allow him to fully present his evidence. 

Our jurisdiction over immigration proceedings is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips us of jurisdiction to review an 

immigration court’s discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal 

under § 1229b or the findings of fact made in support of that decision. Sung v. 

Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007). We have jurisdiction under 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D), however, to consider de novo any “constitutional claims or 

questions of law” raised in a petition for review of such a decision. Id.

Cortina has not raised any claim of constitutional or legal error in 

connection with the denial of his request for cancellation of removal. His 

contentions merely disagree with the weighing of the factors underlying the 

discretionary decision whether he merited cancellation of removal. As noted, 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) prohibits us from reviewing that decision or its factualfindings bases. See Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014); Rueda 

v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). Cortina’s attempt to convert his 

challenge to the non-reviewable, discretionary decision into a question of law 

does not create jurisdiction. See Sung, 505 F.3d at 377.

DISMISSED. 

 Case: 16-60156 Document: 00514059195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                DEC-31-1996

<CASH>                                 9,717,478 
<SECURITIES>                                0    
<RECEIVABLES>                          1,341,237 
<ALLOWANCES>                                0    
<INVENTORY>                                 0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      11,058,715 
<PP&E>                                23,683,898 
<DEPRECIATION>                        12,468,511 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        30,258,324 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  4,108,800 
<BONDS>                               24,939,477 
<COMMON>                                    0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0    
<PREFERRED>                                 0    
<OTHER-SE>                           (11,887,238)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          30,258,324 
<SALES>                                9,389,612 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       9,872,882 
<CGS>                                       0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          5,520,095 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         190,336 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     2,298,677 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,863,774 
<INCOME-TAX>                                0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      804,839 
<DISCONTINUED>                              0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0    
<CHANGES>                                   0    
<NET-INCOME>                             804,839 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              20.28 
<EPS-DILUTED>                              20.28 

        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We have issued our reports dated March 7, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedule and the management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting included in the Annual Report of Third Wave Technologies, Inc. and subsidiarieson Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Third Wave Technologies, Inc. on FormS-3 (File Nos. 333-149187, effective February 14, 2008, 333-148567, effective February 7, 2008, and333-139964, effective January 12, 2007) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-57664, effective March 27,2001, 333-120169, effective November 2, 2004 and 333-134783, effective June 6, 2006).GRANT THORNTON LLP
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INTERNATIONAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS, Plaintiff,


### v. JANET NAPOLITANO, 

### et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) 

### ) Civil Case No. 10-1234 (RJL) ) ) ) ) )

# (Mar~~**~** Forthe reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this
__ day of March 2012, it is hereby 

### ORDERED that defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #33] is 

### GRANTED; and it is further 

### ORDEREDthat plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #37] is 

### DENIED; and it is further 

### ORDEREDthat Counts I through IV in plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. #9] are dismissed with prejudice for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction; it is further 

### ORDEREDthat Counts V and VI in plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. #9] are dismissed withoutprejudice for failure to state a claim for relief.



### SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

1
(7 Misc. Rep. 541.)

#### WEISS et al. v. MORRELL et al.

(No. 2.)

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

March 8, 1894.)

Costs—Trial Fee—Taking Inquest after Default

Under Code Ciy. Proc. § 3251, subd. 3, which provides for trial fee on trial of an issue of fact, plaintiff is entitled to such fee on an inquest taken after a default by defendant

Appeal from city court, general term.

Action by Ignatz Weiss and others against Joseph B. Morrell and another for work, labor, and services in manufacturing certain materials furnished by defendants into uniforms at the agreed price •of $1,856.70. The answer alleged that the work was not done in a good and workmanlike manner; that plaintiffs failed to return surplus cloth to the account of defendants to the amount of any demand by plaintiffs which might be proved on the trial. The action having been regularly reached on the calendar, defendants failed to appear. Their default was entered, and an inquest taken, ■and plaintiffs entered judgment. From a judgment of the city court affirming an order denying defendants’ motion to set aside the judgment and affirming the clerk’s adjustment of costs allowing plaintiffs a trial fee of $30 on an issue of fact, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

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

C. E. Souther, for appellants.

A. B. Jarvorower, for respondents.

DALY, C. J.

■ The contention of defendants, is that plaintiffs were not entitled to $30 trial fee for their inquest, because there was no trial of an issue of fact; there being no denial in the answer, and the affirmative defense therein set up not having been tried, and a trial fee only being allowed upon the trial of an issue of fact. Code, § 3251, subd. 3. It is argued that, a plaintiff being entitled only to a verdict, decision, or judgment (Code, § 990), and these plaintiffs, not being entitled to a verdict or decision, because there was no issue tried, were not entitled to a trial fee in taking judgment. An issue of fact was presented by the pleadings upon the defendants’ plea of recoupment which was to be deemed controverted by plaintiffs. Code, §§ 522, 964. This issue was disposed •of by the judgment taken by the plaintiffs on defendants’ default, and such judgment was conclusive against defendants’ claim. Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. 522. An issue is tried and determined whether the party holding the affirmative appears or not, and the successful party is therefore entitled to his trial fee. A trial fee is always allowed the plaintiff upon an inquest. Hawley v. Davis, 5 Hun, 642; Wessels v. Carr (City Ct. N. Y.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 525; Pomeroy v. Hulin, 7 How. Pr. 161. A trial fee is taxable where *62the complaint is dismissed on failure of plaintiff to appear. Dodd v. Curry, 4 How. Pr. 123. Also where the cause is discontinued while on the day calendar, although it had not been actually called. Duperey v. Phoenix, 1 Abb. N. C. 133, note. In none of these cases-was there a trial other than such as was had in this case. The orders appealed from must be affirmed. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF INCOME, THE CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET, AND THE
     NOTES TO THE  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS
     ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000205520
<NAME>                 KNIGHT-RIDDER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                           USD
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1
<CASH>                            22,677
<SECURITIES>                       4,159
<RECEIVABLES>                    402,193
<ALLOWANCES>                      15,738
<INVENTORY>                       59,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 525,691
<PP&E>                         1,837,751
<DEPRECIATION>                   764,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 4,257,097
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            653,756
<BONDS>                          609,745
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                        1,755
<COMMON>                           1,633
<OTHER-SE>                     1,659,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   4,257,097
<SALES>                        3,091,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               3,091,919
<CGS>                            529,154  <F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  2,587,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  (3,298) <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  20,854
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               105,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  507,916
<INCOME-TAX>                     202,285
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              305,631
<DISCONTINUED>                    60,226  <F3>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                     365,857
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       4.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                       3.73
        
<FN>
<F1> COST OF GOODS SOLD CONSISTS OF NEWSPRINT, INK, AND SUPPLEMENTS.

<F2> OTHER  EXPENSES  CONSISTS  OF ALL  NON-OPERATING  INCOME  AND  COSTS,  NET,
     EXCLUDING INCOME TAXES.  AMOUNT INCLUDES INTEREST EXPENSE,  NET OF INTEREST
     INCOME AND OTHER  NON-OPERATING  COSTS,  NET OF  NON-OPERATING  INCOME THAT
     INCLUDES PRETAX GAINS AGGREGATING $75.3 MILLION ON THE SALES OF THE BALANCE
     OF THE CABLE SYSTEMS WITH TCI AND THE  NEWSPAPER IN GARY,  IND. SEE ITEM 8,
     NOTE G.

<F3> INCLUDES $60.0 MILLION NET GAIN ON SALE OF TECHNIMETRICS.  SEE ITEM 8, NOTE
     G.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rose Wood, Respondent, v Laidlaw Transit, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 18, 1988, which ruled that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

In the course of her duties as a school bus driver on the morning of April 29, 1986, claimant came upon the scene of a rather gruesome automobile accident in which two young children, known to her, died. She remained at the scene until she heard the ambulance arriving, then left quickly since she did not want any of her school children passengers to observe the victims of the accident, one of whom had her head hanging out of a car window. Thereafter, claimant began to develop symptoms of a psychological nature culminating with an episode on June 12, 1986, when she had a near-miss accident with another automobile while driving a busload of kindergarten children. This incident resulted in her hospitalization and treatment for what was diagnosed as a posttraumatic stress disorder which made it impossible for her to return to work as a school bus driver. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that claimant sustained a stress attack from witnessing the accident of April 29, 1986 and awarded benefits. This appeal by the employer ensued.

We agree with the Board’s implicit finding that claimant’s disability arose out of and in the course of her employment. However, we cannot accept a finding that such a disability is the result of an accident within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law because she was not "an active participant in the tragedy” but one uninvolved in any manner until she came upon the scene *(Matter of Wolfe v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co.,*36 NY2d 505, 511). Considering "the record before us in light of the commonsense viewpoint of the average man” *(supra,*at 511) we conclude that the factual pattern in this case fits more comfortably with circumstances described in *Matter of Everett v A. S. Steel Rule Die Corp.*(106 AD2d 181, *affd*66 NY2d 683) than those set forth in *Matter of Wolfe v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. (supra).*Accordingly, we must reverse the Board’s decision and dismiss the claim.

Decision reversed, with costs against the Workers’ Compensation Board, and claim dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.14


 





 



    1 


     


    

 





 



    2 


     


    

 





 



    3 


     


    

 





 



    4 


     


    

 





 



    5 


     


    

 





 



    6 


     


    

 





 



    7 


     


    

 





 



    8
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7319

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLARENCE GOODWIN PERKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CR-93-194, CA-95-1124-1)

Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: May 3, 1999

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Goodwin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Perkins seeks to appeal the district court’s denial

of his motion seeking “clarification” of his fine payment. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Perkins, Nos. CR-93-194, CA-95-1124-1

(S.D.W. Va. Aug. 18, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony Principe, the chief
financial officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies
that, to his knowledge:

      (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                             By:  /s/ ANTHONY PRINCIPE
                                                -------------------------------
                                                      Anthony Principe
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  On2 Technologies, Inc.


April 25, 2005
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-404V

Filed: December 17, 2013

Not for Publication

*************************************

JOAN ELLEN SORENSON, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Isaiah R. Kalinowski, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Julia W. McInerny, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On December 17, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner filed a statement asserting

that she did not incur any costs in pursuit of her petition.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

Petitioner submitted her request for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. During 

informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items in petitioner’s application. 

Based on these objections, petitioner amends her application for attorneys’ fees and costs to 

$24,467.80. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this amount to 

be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $24,467.80, representing reimbursement for 

attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner

and Maglio, Christopher & Toale, located at 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236,

in the amount of $24,467.80.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2013 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
# Službeni list L 208/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0847
  doi:10.3000/19770847.L_2013.208.hrv |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | L 208 |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Zakonodavstvo | 562. kolovoza 2013. |

ISSN 1977-0847

doi:10.3000/19770847.L_2013.208.hrv

Službeni list

Europske unije

L 208

Hrvatsko izdanje

Zakonodavstvo

562. kolovoza 2013.

---

| Sadržaj | | II   Nezakonodavni akti | Stranica |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | MEĐUNARODNI SPORAZUMI |
| | | 2013/398/EU |
| | * | Odluka Vijeća i predstavnika vlada država članica Europske unije, koji se sastaju u okviru Vijeća od 20. prosinca 2012. o potpisivanju, u ime Europske unije, Euro-mediteranskog sporazuma o zrakoplovstvu između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Vlade države Izraela, s druge strane, te o njegovoj privremenoj primjeni | 1 |

Sadržaj

II   Nezakonodavni akti

Stranica

MEĐUNARODNI SPORAZUMI

2013/398/EU

*

Odluka Vijeća i predstavnika vlada država članica Europske unije, koji se sastaju u okviru Vijeća od 20. prosinca 2012. o potpisivanju, u ime Europske unije, Euro-mediteranskog sporazuma o zrakoplovstvu između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Vlade države Izraela, s druge strane, te o njegovoj privremenoj primjeni

1

| HR | Akti čiji su naslovi tiskani običnim slovima su oni koji se odnose na svakodnevno upravljanje poljoprivrednim pitanjima, a općenito vrijede ograničeno razdoblje.
  Naslovi svih drugih akata tiskani su masnim slovima, a prethodi im zvjezdica. |
| --- | --- |

HR

Akti čiji su naslovi tiskani običnim slovima su oni koji se odnose na svakodnevno upravljanje poljoprivrednim pitanjima, a općenito vrijede ograničeno razdoblje.

Naslovi svih drugih akata tiskani su masnim slovima, a prethodi im zvjezdica.

---

II Nezakonodavni akti

MEĐUNARODNI SPORAZUMI

| 2.8.2013 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | L 208/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2013

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

L 208/1

---

ODLUKA VIJEĆA I PREDSTAVNIKA VLADA DRŽAVA ČLANICA EUROPSKE UNIJE, KOJI SE SASTAJU U OKVIRU VIJEĆA

od 20. prosinca 2012.

o potpisivanju, u ime Europske unije, Euro-mediteranskog sporazuma o zrakoplovstvu između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Vlade države Izraela, s druge strane, te o njegovoj privremenoj primjeni

(2013/398/EU)

Ovaj će dokument biti objavljen u posebnom izdanju Službenog lista Europske unije na hrvatskom jeziku ako zadovolji potrebne uvjete.

---