alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruddy Napoleon Dubon GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 11-2500.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 23, 2012.

Filed: March 28, 2012.

Subhash Chandra, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey Bernstein, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*591PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Ruddy Napoleon Du-bon Garcia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of his 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) application for cancellation of removal. In support of his application, Garcia had asserted that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two United-States-citizen children.

This court generally lacks jurisdiction to review a petition challenging a discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding denial of relief under, inter alia, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b (cancellation of removal)), but does have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law raised within such a petition, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (constitutional claims or questions of law are not precluded from review).

To the extent that Garcia is challenging the BIA’s discretionary determination that he failed to show his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children, the petition is unre-viewable. *See Garcia-Torres v. Holder,*660 F.3d 333, 338 (8th Cir.2011) (hardship determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) constitutes discretionary decision barred from appellate review); *Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007) (under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of cancellation of removal for failure to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to American-citizen child). As to the questions of law raised in Garcia’s petition for review, we conclude that they are without merit. *See Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder,*593 F.3d 733, 735 (8th Cir.2010) (BIA’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo); *Gomez-Perez v. Holder,*569 F.3d 370, 372-73 (8th Cir.2009) (alien’s argument that BIA applied incorrect legal standard by focusing on present rather than future hardship was without merit where record showed BIA considered economic, emotional, and social hardship alien’s children would face upon alien’s removal); *Garcia-Torres,*660 F.3d at 338 (hardship determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) is discretionary).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: LANDON V. BUTLER, BLACK GIN COMPANY, BUTLER-FOSTER MILLING COMPANY, AND 

ALABAMA GRAIN ELEVATOR COMPANY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 65 

DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1955 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

February 14, 1955 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 65 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging the following respondents with violation of the 

Commodity Exchange Act: 

Landon V. Butler, 

Black Gin Company, 

Butler-Foster Milling Company, and 

Alabama Grain Elevator Company 

The complaint charges that the respondents attempted to manipulate the price 

of soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade in 1954, and in connection 

therewith delivered or caused to be delivered for transmission in interstate 

commerce, false, misleading, or knowingly inaccurate reports concerning market 

information or conditions, in violation of sections 6(b) and 9 of the Commodity 

Exchange Act. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., Central Standard Time, March 30, 1955, in Room 1200, Board of Trade 

Building, 141 est Jackson Boulevard, Chicago 4, Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1579 

Establishing an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2011. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2010 

Mr. PETERS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Establishing an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2011. 

1 Resolved, That (a) it shall not be in order to con2 sider— 

3 (1) a bill or joint resolution reported by any 

4 committee, or any amendment thereto or conference 

5 report thereon, that includes a congressional ear6 mark or limited tax benefit; or 

7 (2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by any 

8 committee, or any amendment thereto or conference 

9 report thereon, that includes a congressional ear10 mark or limited tax benefit. 

11 (b) For the purposes of this resolution, the terms 

12 ‘‘congressional earmark’’ and ‘‘limited tax benefit’’ have 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1579 IH 

1 the meaning given those terms in clause 9 of rule XXI 

2 of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

3 (c) The point of order under subsection (a) shall only 

4 apply to legislation providing or authorizing discretionary 

5 budget authority, credit authority, or other spending au6 thority, or providing a Federal tax deduction, credit, or 

7 exclusion in fiscal year 2011. 

8 (d) This resolution shall not apply to any authoriza9 tion of appropriations to a Federal entity if such author10 ization is not specifically targeted to a State, locality, or 

11 congressional district. 

12 SEC. 2. The Committee on Rules may not report a 

13 rule or order that would waive the point of order set forth 

14 in the first section of this resolution. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


        We have issued our reports dated November 4, 1996 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of U.S. Robotics Corporation and
Subsidiaries, included in Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
September 29, 1996.  We consent to the incorporation by reference of said
reports in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-89698, 33-89700,
33-89702, 33-97632, 33-98782 and 333-10955) and in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-86856, 33-98758 and 33-33666).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Grant Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois
December 27, 1996
NO. 01-14-00881-CV

IN THE

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

EMERITA MEDINA ET AL, Appellants

v.

GLORIA RAVEN, Appellee 

ON Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1025647

Appellants Motion for Extension of Time To File Brief 

James O. Okorafor

Attorney for Appellants

State Bar No. 15241710

10101 Fondren Rd. Suite 260

Houston, Texas 77096

1 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00881-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/18/2015 2:43:01 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/18/2015 2:43:01 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES:

Appellants respectfully ask the Court to extend the time for the filing 

of their brief for the inclusive reasons below:

1. On February 11, 2015 the Court Clerk sent notice indicating that the 

Reporter’s Record had been filed and that Appellants’ brief was due 30 

days thereafter, if the record was not to be supplemented.

2. Appellants are in the process of determining whether to file with the 

County Court Clerk a Request For Supplemental Record in reliance on 

TRAP 34.5 (c). It also appears that the Reporters record may be 

incomplete and require supplementation, unless the parties and counsels 

agree to rely on the Reporter’s Record as presently filed.

3. The Court may grant an extension of time under TRAP Rule 10. To the 

extent required by the applicable rules, Appellants concurrently 

respectfully request permission for the “late filing” of this motion.

4. Appellants respectfully request an extension of time of not more than 

sixty (60) days to allow the Post Trial Clerks of the Harris County Clerk’s 

office to prepare and to file the Supplemental Records as may be 

requested and to allow Appellants time to arrange for a Supplemental 

Reporter’s record and\or solicit stipulations regarding the “adequacy” of the 

Reporter’s Record on file for purposes of this appeal and to file their brief.

5. No previous extension either has been requested by Appellants or 

granted by the Court which respect to the briefing time table.

6. Appellants respectfully pray that the Court grant this motion and extend 

the time for filing their brief by an additional sixty (60) days.

2
Respectfully Submitted:

/s/ James O. Okorafor

James O. Okorafor

SBOT # 15241710

10101 Fondren, Suite 260

Houston, Texas 77096

TEL No: (713) 839-9700; email: laws@joolaws.com

Attorney for Appellants {Medina et al}.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This will certify that the foregoing Motion complied with the length requirements 

of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i). The foregoing document is 294 words long. 

/s/ James O. Okorafor

James O. Okorafor.

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document was served on Appellees’ counsel of record via the 

Electronic Case Manager on March 18, 2015.

/s/ James O. Okorafor

James O. Okorafor.

 

3
No. 344.

#### Brown *v.*Garey et al., Executors.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. John Fletcher*
      *616
      *Caskey*for petitioner.

*615Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York denied.

*616
      *Messrs. Emil Weitzner, Eugene L. Garey,*and *Earl J. Garey*for respondents.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1548 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1548

  Condemning the recent violence against members of the media in the 
                              Philippines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2010

Mr. Royce submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Condemning the recent violence against members of the media in the 
                              Philippines.

Whereas according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, ``sixty-five 
        journalists have been murdered in the Philippines in the past two 
        decades, a death toll trailing only Iraq.'';
Whereas, on the morning of November 23, 2009, 30 journalists and 2 media support 
        workers were ambushed and murdered by more than 100 heavily armed 
        militiamen as they accompanied a group to file candidacy papers for 
        Esmael Mangudadatu in what would become known as the Maguindanao 
        Massacre;
Whereas the primary suspects in the Maguindanao Massacre have not been convicted 
        of a crime, and additional suspects remain at large;
Whereas, over the past 2 decades, Philippine authorities have obtained 
        convictions in only 5 murder cases involving journalists;
Whereas, on June 14, 2010, Desiderio Camangyan of Sunrise FM, located in the 
        southern Philippines, was shot and killed onstage while hosting a 
        singing contest;
Whereas, on June 15, 2010, Joselito Agustin, a broadcaster with DZJC Aksyon 
        Radyo, located in the northern Philippines, was ambushed and shot dead 
        by 2 gunmen as he was returning home from work;
Whereas the reporters who were killed were known for their commentaries on 
        corruption, illegal logging, and other political issues of interest in 
        the Philippines;
Whereas the Committee to Protect Journalists finds that the culture of impunity 
        that exists in the Philippines is unseen in any other peacetime 
        democracy; and
Whereas a free press is a hallmark of free societies and is a vital tool in 
        combating corruption: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns the recent violence against members of the 
        media in the Philippines;
            (2) expresses its condolences to the families of Joselito 
        Agustin, Desiderio Camangyan, and others who have been victims 
        of violence against the media; and
            (3) calls on the Government of the Philippines to fully 
        investigate the murders of Joselito Agustin and Desiderio 
        Camangyan.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

I, R. Jerry Giles, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Financial Corporation (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

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) 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;

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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; and

b) 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.

Date: August 13, 2007

/s/ R. Jerry Giles
R. Jerry Giles
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: CHARLES E. GILCHRIST 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 147 

DATE: MAY 29, 1974 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Charles E. Gilchrist 

Stipulation of Compliance Under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 147 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Charles E. Gilchrist 

has violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C., Chapter 1) 

and the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated thereunder (17 

CFR, Chapter 1). No complaint with respect to such violations has been issued 

and the said Charles E. Gilchrist is desirous of disposing of the matter by 

entering into a stipulation of complaince as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the 

Rules of Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Part 0). Therefore, 

the said Charles E. Gilchrist stipulates the following facts are true: 

(1) Charles E. Gilchrist, an individual whose address is 222 S. Riverside 

Plaza, Room 520, Chicago, Illinois 60606, is now and was at all times material 

herein a member of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a duly designated contract 

market under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

(2) The registration of Charles E. Gilchrist as floor broker under the 

Commodity Exchange Act for the calendar year 1973 expired on December 31, 1973, 

and the said Charles E. Gilchrist did not submit an application for registration 

as a floor broker under the Act for the calendar year 1974 until January 16, 

1974. 

(3) During the period from January 1 through January 16, 1974, Charles E. 

Gilchrist acted as floor broker by executing for another person orders for the 

purchase or sale of commodities for future delivery on or subject to the rules 

of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. 

The Commodity Exchange Authority has advised Charles E. Gilchrist that by 

reason of the acts set forth above, he has violated section 4e of the Act and 

section 1.8 of the regulations thereunder. 

The said Charles E. Gilchrist agrees to desist from such acts and practices 

in the future. He further understands and agrees that this stipulation is 

admissible as evidence of such acts and practices in any future proceeding based 

upon act; or practices in addition to those referred to herein which may be 

brought against him by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the 

said Act. He also understands that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange 

Authority to issue press releases on stipulations of compliance and to make them 

a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois 

this 29th day of May 1974. 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Charles E. Gilchrist 
Page 2 

Witnessed by: 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SAMIR SAUNDERS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 380 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1679 EDA
2019 entered on March 22, 2021, affirming, vacating and remanding the Judgment of Sentence of the Bucks County Court

of Common Pleas at No. CP

- 09

- CR

0002212

- 2018 entered on April 26,

2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TIMOTHY DESHAN DAVIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 381 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1572 EDA
2019 entered on March 22, 2021, affirming, vacating and remanding the Judgment of Sentence of the Bucks County Court

of Common Pleas at No. CP

- 09

- CR

0004661

- 2017 entered on May 3,

2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VERNON GEORGE KLINE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 382 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1180 EDA
2019 entered on March 22, 2021, affirming, vacating and remanding the Judgment of Sentence of the Bucks County Court

of Common Pleas at No. CP

- 09

- CR

-[ 380

- 3 85 MAL 2021 ]

- 2 :

: 0007906

- 2017 entered on July 30,

2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEITH THOMAS MORRIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 383 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1184 EDA
2019 entered on March 22, 2021, vacating and remanding the Order of the Bucks County Court of

Common Pleas at No. CP

- 09

- CR

0005089

- 2017 entered on March 18,

2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTOPHER L. HENNEGHAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 384 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1218 EDA
2019 entered on March 22, 2021, vacating and remanding the Order of the Bucks County Court of

Common Pleas at No. CP

- 09

- CR

0007376

- 2017 entered on March 18,

2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DARRIUS J. PRINCE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 385 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1243 EDA
2019 entered on March 22, 2021, affirming, vacating and remanding the Judgment of Sentence of the Bucks County Court

of Common Pleas at No. CP

- 09

- CR

0000025

- 2018 entered on August 6,

2018[ 380

- 3 85 MAL 2021 ]

- 3 ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED : August 9, 2024

AND NOW , this 9th day of August , 2024, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal are

GRANTED , the orders of the Superior Court are VACATED , and the cases are

REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of the Court’s decision in

Commonwealth v. Torsilieri , __ A.3d __, 2024 WL 2789201 (Pa. filed May 31, 2024).
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: WILLIAM J. MALLERS 

CITATION: 17 Agric. Dec. 1197 

DOCKET NUMBER: 86 

DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1958 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

NOTE: ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT WAS NOT REPORTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL 

DECISIONS IS AVAILABLE IN THIS DATABASE 

(No. 6726) 

CEA Docket No. 86. Dismissed December 12, 1958, by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial 

Officer. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Larry WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Warden, et al.

No. 16-5955.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
TEXAS PACKAGE STORES ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, v. FINE WINE & SPIRITS OF NORTH TEXAS, LLC, et al.

No. 16-242.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
(March 27, 2009)

#### In the Matter of Paul Brown, as President of Building and Construction Trades Council of Buffalo and Vicinity, et al., Respondents, v County of Erie et al., Appellants. Operating Engineers Local 17 Training Fund, Intervenor-Respondent; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[874 NYS2d 923] —

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Drury, A.J.), entered October 16, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motions of respondents to dismiss the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs *(see*CPLR 5701 [b] [1]). Present— Smith, J.P., Centra, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ.