alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2452

MELEY MILLER, a/k/a Meley Ghirmay,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A73-711-409)

Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Meley Miller, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitions for

review of a final order of the Board must be filed no later than

thirty days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1) (2000). The Board’s order is dated October 20, 2004.

Thus Miller’s petition for review was due to be filed by

November 19, 2004. As Miller filed the petition for review on

November 22, 2004, we find that her petition is untimely. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack

of jurisdiction. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
Order entered July 8 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01507 - CV HOLLY HENDERSON, FOR MERLY KNOWN AS, HOLL Y CITELLI, Appellant V. STEPHEN E. CHRISMAN AND TRACI L. CHRISMA N, Appellee s On Appeal from the 416th J udicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416 - 01374 - 2009



### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s July 6, 2015 unopposed motion to extend time to file reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than July 16, 2015

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JU STICE
S. Bruce HIRAN, et al., petitioners, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al.

No. 18-1236.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 18, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00071-CV

TERENCE DANIELS, Appellant

V.

CHARLES SCHWAB INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-DCV-272672

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from a final judgment signed on September 28, 

2020. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on October 16, 2020. 

The notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days after the judgment is signed 

when a timely post-judgment motion is filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). The 

ninetieth day after the judgment was signed was Sunday, December 27, 2020. The 

deadline was extended to Monday, December 28, 2020. Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a). 

Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until February 4, 2021.
2

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, 

acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1, 

but within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for 

extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) 

(construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellants’ notice of appeal was not filed 

within the 15-day period provided by Rule 26.3.

A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal that was not timely 

perfected. When the court lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the appeal. See Baker 

v. Baker, 469 S.W.3d 269, 272 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.).

On February 1, 2021, we notified the parties of the court’s intention to dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless, within 10 days, any party showed 

meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). 

Appellant did not respond to the notice directly, but he filed a “Motion for 

Reconsideration of Appeal.” The motion fails to demonstrate we have jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Roberta F. Jackson, Principal Accounting Officer for Virtual Education Software, Inc. certify that:



1.

I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K of Virtual Education Software, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3.

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





Dated: March 27, 2009



/s/ Roberta F. Jackson

Roberta F. Jackson

(Principal Accounting Officer)











1
Edward David JONES, Jr., petitioner, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, former Governor of California, et al.

No. 18-5367.

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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130205 & (24) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130205 

 COA: 260995 

Oakland CC: 2000-176116-FC 

KEITH LARON DOBBINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 3, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to compel discovery is DENIED. 

d0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 31, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Open Grid Alliance, Inc. (“OGA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Arctos Labs Scandinavia AB, Lucea, SWEDEN; Arm, Ltd., Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; Amazon Web Services, Inc., Seattle, WA; blocz IO Limited, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; Centech, Montreal, CANADA; Dell Technologies, Round Rock, TX; DriveNets, Ra'anana, ISRAEL; Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn, GERMANY; Intel Corp, Santa Clara, CA; Invision AI, Inc., Toronto, CANADA; ITRenew, Newark, CA; MITACS, Vancouver, CANADA; Nife Labs Pte Ltd., Singapore, SINGAPORE; OVA Inc., Quebec, CANADA; Vapor IO, Austin, TX; and VMware, Inc., Palo Alto, CA. The general area of OGA's planned activity is to develop “open grid” multi-cloud edge architectures and promote market adoption of such architectures, and undertake such further activities as may from time to time be appropriate to further such purposes and achieve such goals. Membership in OGA remains open and intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-10215 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 10.2

 

EXECUTION VERSION

 

Termination of Cooperation Agreement

 

Dated as of March 11, 2019

 

Reference is made to the Cooperation Agreement dated as of July 31, 2018 among ORCC II FINANCING LLC (“ORCC II Financing” and a “Borrower”), OR LENDING II LLC (“OR Lending II” and a “Borrower” and, collectively with ORCC II Financing, the “Borrowers”) and GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA (“Goldman Sachs”).

 

On the date hereof, the Borrowers and Goldman Sachs will enter into the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) among the Borrowers; the lenders thereunder (the “Lenders”), including Goldman Sachs; Goldman Sachs, as administrative agent (in such capacity, the “Administrative Agent”), as sole lead arranger (in such capacity, the “Arranger”) and as syndication agent (in such capacity, the “Syndication Agent”); State Street Bank and Trust Company, as collateral administrator and as collateral agent (the “Collateral Agent”); and Cortland Capital Market Services LLC, as collateral custodian (the “Collateral Custodian”).  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Credit Agreement.

 

Upon satisfaction of the conditions precedent to the effectiveness of the Credit Agreement, each of the parties hereto hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Cooperation Agreement is terminated and of no further force or effect.

 

This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument and any of the parties hereto may execute this agreement by signing any such counterpart.  Delivery of a counterpart by electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.  This agreement and any right, remedy, obligation, claim, controversy, dispute or cause of action (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) based upon, arising out of or relating to this agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of the State of New York without regard to conflicts of law principles that would lead to the application of laws other than the law of the State of New York.

 

[remainder of page intentionally blank]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.

 

	
 
    	
ORCC   II FINANCING LLC
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
OR   LENDING II LLC
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
GOLDMAN   SACHS BANK USA
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Managing   Director
    


 

2
Norris Lynn FISHER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8910.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 21, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), UHD Alliance, Inc. (“UHD Alliance”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Beijing ESWIN Computing Technology Co. Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA; and Synaptics, San Jose, CA have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42537).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 4, 2022. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 11, 2022 (87 FR 14041).                

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-10251 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, David Derby, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Golden Patriot, Corp.



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report ;



c)

presented in this annual 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; and



d)

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;



5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:  November 18, 2003



/s/ David Derby

David Derby, CFO, Director
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 17

- 00839

- CV

Marilyn STEWART

, Appellant

v.

FIESTA CITY REALTORS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CV

- 05536 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is VACATED. No costs of appeal are taxed against Appellant because she qualifies as indig ent under

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED October 3, 2018.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PLAINS TOWNSHIP, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS 

SIMILARLY SITUATED AND PLYMOUTH 

BOROUGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON 

BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY 

SITUATED,

Appellants

v.

HOSPITAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF 

NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA F/K/A 

BLUE CROSS OF NORTHEASTERN 

PENNSYLVANIA, A PENNSYLVANIA 

NONPROFIT CORPORATION AND 

ALLONE FOUNDATION, A 

PENNSYLVANIA NONPROFIT 

CORPORATION, AND ALLONE 

CHARITIES, A PENNSYLVANIA 

NONPROFIT CORPORATION AND 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

BY ITS OFFICE OF ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 8 MAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 350 MD 

2016 dated January 24, 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: November 22, 2017

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2017, the order of the Commonwealth 

Court is AFFIRMED.

Justice Todd did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Jennifer L. WILSON, petitioner, v. SUNTRUST BANK, et al.

No. 18-1284.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

February 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 06-70005

__________________________

ROBERT JAMES NEVILLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON, etc., et al,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

___________________________________________________

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert James Neville appeals the dismissal of his action seeking injunctive relief and a stay

of execution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that a particular lethal injection protocol as well as

related procedures violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The district

court dismissed Neville’s action because he was dilatory in filing his action for equitable relief. We

AFFIRM.

A challenge to a method of execution may be filed any time after the plaint iff’s conviction has

become final on direct review. White v. Johnson

, 429 F.3d 572, 574 (2005). Neville’s death penalty

conviction was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1999. Neville then waited untiltwo days before his scheduled execution to file a method of execu t ion challenge with the district

court. He, therefore, “‘delayed unnecessarily in bringing his claim.’” Harris v. Johnson

, 376 F.3d 414,

416 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Nelson v. Campbell , 541 U.S. 637, 650 (2004)).

A cognizable § 1983 claim “”does not warrant the entry of a stay as a matter of right.”” See

White

, 429 F.3d at 573 (quoting Nelson

, 541 U.S. at 649). Rather, this “court may consider the lastminute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.” Id

.

In addition, the court may consider the last-minute nature of all types of equitable requests, including

permanent injunctions. See id

. at 574. This court “‘must take into consideration the State’s strong

interest in proceeding with its judgment and

. . . attem pts at manipulation.’” Id

. (quoting Nelson

, 541

U.S. at 649) (alteration in original).

Neville offers no excuse for delaying his claim until the last minute, and, therefore, we find

it improper to grant the equitable relief he seeks. Although the Supreme Court has granted a writ of

certiorari in Hill v. Crosby , 05-8794, – S. Ct. –, 2006 WL 171583 (Jan. 25, 2006), “our precedent

. . . remains binding until the Supreme Court provides contrary guidance.” In re: Elizalde , No. 06-

70002 (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 2006) (citations o mit t ed). Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s

dismissal of Neville’s claims.