alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
O'Neil Anthony HARRIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5308.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Adib Eddie Ramez MAKDESSI, petitioner, v. Lieutenant FIELDS, et al.

No. 18-5327.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
SEALED APPELLANT, petitioner, v. SEALED APPELLEE.

No. 18-8821.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
SCWC-28826

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

ROBERT KUTKOWSKI,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant/Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee,

vs.

PRINCEVILLE PRINCE GOLF COURSE, LLC, a Delaware Limited

Liability Company, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee/DefendantCross-Appellant, and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5, DOE LIMITED LIABILITY

COMPANIES 1-5, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5, DOE ENTITIES 1–5, JOHN DOES

1-5, AND JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 28826; CIV. NO. 05-1-0004)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Nakasone, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant/Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee

Robert Kutkowski’s application for writ of certiorari filed on

June 25, 2012, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral

argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk

regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 1, 2012.

Margery S. Bronster,

Rex Y. Fujichaku, and

Joe P. Moss,

for petitioner

David W. Proudfoot and

Max W. J. Graham, Jr., 

for respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-28826

01-AUG-2012

09:13 AM
# Official Journal L 261I/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 261I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6118 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 261I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6118 October 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1562 of 18 October 2018 amending for the 292nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1562 of 18 October 2018 amending for the 292nd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73637

Agency No. A091

- 607

- 548

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Martinez

, a native and citizen of Mexico

, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

AUG 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 14

- 73637

Coronado v. Holder , 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9t h Cir. 2014). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency properly denied cancellation of removal, where Martinez failed

to establish that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony

. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b( a )( 3 ); Pereida v. Wilkinson , 141 S.Ct. 754, 76 6 (2021) ( an inconclusive

conviction record is insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of proof to show

eligibility for relief ). We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez’s contention that

the record does not establ ish that he was convicted under California Health and

Safety Code S ections 11351 and 11352. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674,

677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to

the agency)

. Thus, Martinez ’s cancellatio n of removal claim fails.

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Martinez’s contention that he

was lawfully admitted for permanent residence

. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371

F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts a re not required to decide issues that are

unnecessary to the results).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
Curumulathu JACOB, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 18-5243.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Santos CUEVAS, petitioner, v. Brandon KELLY, Superintendent, Oregon State Prison.

No. 18-7372.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Stephen KRELL, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 18-8786.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.
Dominique GREEN, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-8372.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District denied.
Miguel Angel OLVERA-CRUZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7776.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Felix A. OKAFOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5075.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NATHAN YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:04-cr-00050-F-1) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathan Young, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nathan Young appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification or deferment of his fine. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Young , No. 7:04-cr-00050-F-l (E.D.N.C. May 28, 2008). 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. AFFIRMED
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Restoration Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Lopez, Candice, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Maryana Feigen of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered May 24, 2016. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Plaintiff's remaining contentions are either without merit or not considered because they are raised for the first time on appeal (<i>see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc.</i>, 88 AD3d 963 [2011]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 16, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Amilcar Crabeal BUTLER, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 17-6082.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Division denied.
Annette BENJAMIN, petitioner, v. FELDER SERVICES, L.L.C., dba Oxford Health and Rehab Center.

No. 18-1089.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Paul Glen EVERETT, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-8300.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in *Reynolds v. Florida,* 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 27, 202 L.Ed.2d 389 (2018) ( Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
Peli Popovich HUNT, petitioner, v. David M. GOODRICH, et al.

No. 18-1221.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**          The undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Allied Holdings, Inc.,certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2006, which accompanies this certification fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information containedin the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Allied Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. Theforegoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.          This 8th day of September 2006.         /s/Hugh E. Sawyer         *Hugh E. Sawyer*    *President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto Allied Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Allied Holdings, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.The information in this Exhibit 32.1 shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference inany filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specificreference in such filing.
I

★

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1363

To specify that the legal public holiday known as Washington’s Birthday

be called by the name.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. LINDER, Mrs.

JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. SPENCE, Mr.

BASS, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BOEHLERT,

Mr. COBLE, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas,

Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, and Mr. MARTINEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To specify that the legal public holiday known as

Washington’s Birthday be called by the name.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘George Washington,

5 Bicentennial Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 1363 IH1S

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WASHINGTON’S BIRTHDAY.

2 The legal public holiday known as ‘‘Washington’s

3 Birthday’’ as specified in section 6103 of title 5, United

4 States Code, shall be referred to by that name and no

5 other—

6 (1) by all entities and officials of the United

7 States Government; and

8 (2) whenever it appears in any federally funded

9 publications.

Æ
James H. BRADY, petitioner, v. NEW YORK, et al.

No. 18-765.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department denied.
Guy Andrew INMAN, Jr., petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-9318.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Jose Angel CORTEZ-LUNA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9278.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Mario Howard LLOYD, petitioner, v. Scott MOATS, et al.

No. 18-5326.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

*254Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**          The undersigned, as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AlliedHoldings, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, which accompanies this certification fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Allied Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. Theforegoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.          This11th day of October, 2007.            /s/ Thomas H. King         *Thomas H. King*    *Executive Vice President and*    *Chief Financial Officer*  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto Allied Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Allied Holdings, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.The information in this Exhibit 32.2 shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference inany filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specificreference in such filing.
Howard Anthony MONIZ, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 18-8240.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
John Patrick FLETCHER, petitioner, v. Jason LENGERICH, Warden, et al.

No. 17-9534.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Nicholas J. BONACCI, petitioner, v. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

No. 18-1209.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 11.1
 IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
RECONCILIATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
  
  SharesNet Income
    
    
    outstanding and
    
    
    Amount per(unaudited)
    
    
    equivalents
    
    
    ShareQuarter ended June 30, 2005Basic EPS
    
    $
    64,050
    
    
    
    48,348,475
    
    
    $
    1.32Diluted EPS
    
    $
    64,050
    
    
    
    48,426,669
    
    
    $
    1.32Quarter ended June 30, 2004Basic EPS
    
    $
    74,148
    
    
    
    48,274,276
    
    
    $
    1.54Diluted EPS
    
    $
    74,148
    
    
    
    48,354,678
    
    
    $
    1.53Six months ended June 30, 2005Basic EPS
    
    $
    108,005
    
    
    
    48,339,643
    
    
    $
    2.23Diluted EPS
    
    $
    108,005
    
    
    
    48,427,886
    
    
    $
    2.23Six months ended June 30, 2004Basic EPS
    
    $
    147,776
    
    
    
    48,262,050
    
    
    $
    3.06Diluted EPS
    
    $
    147,776
    
    
    
    48,355,325
    
    
    $
    3.06
 20
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                       JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
----                                       -----------------------------
<S>                                        <C>
Informatica GmbH                           Germany
Informatica Software Limited               United Kingdom
Informatica Software Ltd.                  Canada
Influence Software                         California
Informatica Software (Switzerland) AG      Switzerland
Informatica International, Inc.            Delaware
Informatica Cayman Ltd.                    Cayman Islands
Zimba                                      California
IS Informatica Software Ltda.              Brazil
Informatica Belgie N.V.                    Belgium
Informatica Nederland B.V.                 The Netherlands
Informatica France S.A.                    France
</TABLE>
William James HASTINGS, petitioner, v. Mary BERGHUIS, Warden.

No. 17-9296.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jose Luis MEDINA-AVALOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9342.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
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

ROBERT L. FINLEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-16258

D.C. No. 2:06-CV-01086-RLHLRL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Roger L. Hunt, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

Robert L. Finley, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action implicating the

Eighth Amendment and alleging that defendants deprived him of a mattress. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

FILED

JUL 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16258

decision regarding qualified immunity. Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d

1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. 

The district court properly concluded that defendants were entitled to

qualified immunity because prisoners do not have a clearly established right to

sleep on a comfortable mattress. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347

(1981) (“[C]onditions that cannot be said to be cruel and unusual under

contemporary standards are not unconstitutional. To the extent that such

conditions are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal

offenders pay for their offenses against society.”); Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d

1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1988) (a short term deprivation of a mattress is insufficient to

state an Eighth Amendment violation), judgment vacated on other grounds, 493

U.S. 801 (1989). The record reflects that during the time period when Finley

alleges he did not have a mattress, defendants provided him with an “alternative

mattress,” consisting of three wool blankets. 

Finley’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
David Curtis SMITH, petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 18-9002.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.