alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARACELY DE LA LUZ POLANCOCHINCHILLA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 07-71933

 07-72692

Agency No. A029-135-265

MEMORANDUM*

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Aracely De La Luz PolancoChinchilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen deportation

proceedings under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act

FILED

JUN 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-71933

(“NACARA”), and its order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

motions to reopen and reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th

Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Polanco-Chinchilla’s motion

to reopen where her motion was filed more than five years after the September 11,

1998, NACARA deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1), and Polanco-Chinchilla

did not demonstrate she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, 

cf. Albillo-De Leon v. Gonzalez, 410 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Polanco-Chinchilla’s motion

to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the

BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272

F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). 

We lack jurisdiction to review Polanco-Chinchilla’s ineffective assistance of

counsel claim because she failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

Polanco-Chinchilla’s remaining contentions are unavailing. 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

ACTIVE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES

Westaff
(USA), Inc.
MediaWorld International
Westaff Support, Inc.
Westaff (GP),Inc.
Westaff (LP),Inc.
Westaff (CA),Inc.
Westaff Limited Partnership

INACTIVE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES

Western Medical Services, Inc.
Western Medical Services (NY), Inc.

ACTIVE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

Australia:Westaff (Australia) Pty Ltd
Western Personnel Services Pty. Ltd
Western Temporary Services Pty Limited

Denmark:Westaff A/S

New Zealand:Westaff NZ Limited
    Western Staff Services (NZ) Limited

Norway:Westaff AS

Singapore:Westaff (Singapore) Pte Ltd

United Kingdom:Westaff (U.K.)Limited
    Western Staff Services (UK) Limited

INACTIVE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

Mexico:Westaff de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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 Quarterly Report of Wentworth VI, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Kevin R. Keating
              Kevin
      R. Keating
              Principal
      Executive Officer
              Principal
      Financial Officer
              May
      11, 2009
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

              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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Walt
Hilger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
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 results of operations of the
Company.
                                          /s/ Walt Hilger
                                         -------------------------------------
Dated:       March 31, 2003               Walt Hilger
                                          Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Hon. Stephen P. Bsbert, Page 2 

eke11 enter jadgraent on the ttirdlat or plea aad 

the 8ai #hall be ereouted as provided by Chapter 

4, Title 9, of the Oode ot Criminal prooedure of 

the State of Texae. Provided turthesr, that the 

Court or Judge thereof, In the exeraiee of sound 

discretion My permit ths defenUa.nti where Judemen% is deierred, to remain at lsrge on his own 

reoogniminoe, or may require him to enter Into 

bond in a mua at leaat doubl,e the amount of the 

aeeeerrt3 tlnb land ooata, oonditionsd that the 

defendant and suretletii, Jointly and severally, 

will pay auoh fine and ooarte unless the defendant 

personally appears 05 the day set In the order 

and 618ohargee the judgment fn the rammer provlde4 by Chepter 4, Title 8 of the Code of GrimInal Prooedure of the Stats of Texa6; and for the 

enforoement of eny Judgment enter&, all writs, 

proowaee axd remetlies o? *.he Gods of Criminal 

Prdeedpre are made applioeble 80 tar aa neaeerary t6 oarrf out’the prortrions of this ArtIole.* 

WI rtatuta oleerly provibee that th6 jud:gent 

shell not be deferre& for & longer period of time than six 

(6) month8 ind that in, etexy inetanee where the w$qurt 

ereioirrr &la, dimhtlon to defer the Judgment, hia order 

60 dQiag mast f&x the date to irhioh the jtulgment is Ueferred, uid thet 6ay muet’not be m&e than six months from 

the date of the reception of the Yerbiot or plea of guilty. 

Xc242 tk Inrtenoe that the judgraent hae been 

l î ë;h, .%wa %, iz +& a6í?E . R T,rsLl+ a XL, snnnn 

dieoretion, rrj permit the defendant to remain at large 

on hie own retignIzanoer 

TM euthority of the oonrt to permit the defendant 

to remain at 1-e on his own rmognizanee where the ju4gment has bra& Aeferr,ed ie~neoe8aarIlp linit.ed by the preoeding prorimfoji6 of’ this rtetuts prrsoribing the period ot 

time rox #hioh th# judgment mey be deterred. The authOrIt;r 

of the aoura La to permit the derendent, where ju5agnent Is 

defa!rdl, to’romiiin et laXg6 Ou hie Own reOOgiBanOe during 

the period ot Qefersent, AnF,ettempt on the part of the 

0-t, b]r arder, to dti9r juag4tmi fnbefInitel~, or beyond 

th0 air 8mhltr pcrxltra;, ox to’ pqmit tlke. defendant to ramin 

at large OQ .h$u owx reabgniranoe Ixdetlnitelf, OF becnb 

the 01~ months peri&, .*@Ld not, only oonsti~tute a violation 
Hon. stephan P. Hebert, Pege 3 

of the protlslons of ArtioLe 698, but would aonetitute RII 

rttenpteff exeroise of the p?+rdonIng power, 1 powor n.Uch is 

veeted by the Conetitutlon of the State of TeXPe exolus5.~oly In the Governor of this St-te,. euhJeot, of ooureo, to the 

nffinmtive reaommendation of the Bonrd of ::?nrdona & tkroles. 

Trueting tlmt the foregoing cnawaro yo.ur queetlon, 

we sre 

Yours very truly 

A’ITOR~HiCY GZ!?!EP!lL CF TMS 

BY (,&4&t& 

R. ii’. Fnfrohild 

Assletent
```

[Federal Register: January 20, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 2701]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ja04-25]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Office

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, February 13, 2004.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-1187 Filed 1-15-04; 11:22 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 21, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-2436

Lower Tribunal No. 75-11762B

________________



### William Charles Richardson,

Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stephen T.

Millan, Judge.

William Charles Richardson, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.Affirmed. The Appellant, William Charles Richardson, is directed to show

cause, within thirty days of the date of this opinion, why he should not be

prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, motions, or other pleadings

in this Court relating to lower tribunal case F75-11762. See State v. Spencer

, 751

So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), and the trial court’s orders of October 13, 2017, June 24,

2016, September 24, 2015, and April 12, 2013, as well as this Court’s opinions and

orders in Case Nos. 3D17-2051, 3D16-2162, 3D16-1825, 3D15-1936, 3D15-530,

and 3D13-2045.

2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350),****David P. Perry, President and Chief Executive Officer of Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), and Geoffrey M. Parker, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

**1.            **The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

**2.            **The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 12th day of May, 2011.

 

 
| /s/ David P. Perry                    |   | /s/   Geoffrey M. Parker  |
|---------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
| David P. Perry                        |   | Geoffrey   M. Parker      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   | Senior   Vice President,  |
|                                  |   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13(a)-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350) has been provided to Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
```

[Federal Register: August 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 51270]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18au04-45]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, September 3, 2004.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-19038 Filed 8-16-04; 2:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-01089-CR

Jackie Johnson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appealed from the County Criminal

Court at Law No. 11 of Harris County. 

(Tr. Ct. No. 1686082). Opinion 

delivered by Justice Brown. Justices 

Boyce and McCally also participating.

TO THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW NO. 11 OF HARRIS

COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on August 21, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its 

order in these words:

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant to pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said 

Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth 

Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, February 

13, 2015.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Donald R. ChappelDonald R. ChappelChief Financial Officer of Williams Pipeline GP LLC,
general partner of Williams Pipeline Partners L.P.
(Principal Financial Officer) 26
D ismissed and Opinion Filed October 20, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 00547

- CV

PERFECTO RODRIGUEZ, II , Appellant

V.

JUDITH SLAGLE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 22

- 06378

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith Opinion by Justice Molberg
This appeal challenges the associate judge’s final judgment dismissing

appe l lant’s claims against appellee for failure to replead

. Because an associate

judge’s judgment is not appealable until signed by the referring cou rt

, see T EX

.

G OV ’ T

. C ODE A NN

. § 54A.116(b) , and nothing before us reflected the referring court

had signed the judgment

, w e requested appellant to file a letter brief addressing the

jurisdictional issue. Although appellant complied

, nothing therein demonstrates our– 2

–

jurisdiction. Accordingly, on the record before us, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction

. See id. ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

230547f.p05 /Ken Molberg/ /
KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PERFECTO RODRIGUEZ, II, Appellant

No. 05

- 23

- 00547

- CV V.

JUDITH SLAGLE, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 22

- 06378. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Carlyle and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 20 th day of October

, 2023

.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27525-27526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12460]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 7-8, 2001.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Governor's House Hotel, 1615 Rhode Island Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20036.
    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, Ph.D, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6144, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-6470.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development

[[Page 27526]]

Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research 
Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service 
Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 10, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-12460 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
1 The Honorable Thomas B. Wells, Chief Judge of the United States Tax Court. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3861

___________ Perry Tschida, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 19, 2003 Filed: March 10, 2003

___________ Before McMILLIAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Perry Tschida appeals the tax court’s 1 dismissal of his amended petition for a lien or levy action under I.R.C. § 6320(c) or § 6330(d). Our de novo review persuades us that Tschida’s petition was untimely filed. See I.R.C. §§ 6330(d)(1), 7502; Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp. , 991 F.2d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1993 ) (standard of review) . Because the untimely filing deprived the tax court of jurisdiction, and because the court may consider its jurisdiction on its own motion, we conclude that the tax court properly dismissed the petition. SeeCommissioner v. McCoy , 484 U.S.-2- 3, 7 (1987) (per curiam); Bueford , 991 F.2d at 485; Raymond v. Commissioner , No 2354-01L, 2002 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 48 at *5 & n.3 (T. C. Oct. 22, 2002). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4


                              SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                                THE PHAMIS INC.
                    1993 COMBINED INCENTIVE AND NONQUALIFIED
                               STOCK OPTION PLAN

     THIS AMENDMENT to the PHAMIS Inc. 1993 Combined Incentive and Nonqualified
Stock Option Plan (the "1993 Plan") is made by PHAMIS Inc. (the "Company") on
this 24th day of April, 1996, and is effective immediately.

                                   RECITALS:

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the 1993 Plan, the Board of Directors
has previously delegated to the Compensation Committee the full administration
of the 1993 plan;

     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee believes that it is in the Company's
best interest to revise the Company's current policy with regard to vesting of
option grants made under the 1993 plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows;

          1.  Vesting Schedule.  All options granted under the 1993 Plan shall,
              ----------------
unless otherwise noted in the resolutions relating to any specific option grant,
be subject to the following vesting provisions:

     25% of the shares subject to the option shall be vested one year from the
     date of option grant;

     50% of the shares subject to the option shall be vested two years from the
     date of option grant;

     75% of the shares subject to the option shall be vested three years from
     the date of option grant; and

     100% of the shares subject to the option shall be vested four years from
     the date of the option grant.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned authority has executed this amendment
as of the day and year first written above.

                              PHAMIS INC.

                              By:   ___________________________________

                              Its:  ___________________________________