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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAXMI RIMAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70693

Agency No. A099-363-198

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 4, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Laxmi Rimal, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from an Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

FILED

MAR 08 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 We therefore do not reach the IJ’s alternative grounds for denying Rimal’s 1

applications, which the BIA did not address. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d at

1048.

2

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s

factual findings, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010), and we

review de novo claims of due process violations, Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657

F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determinations. The

IJ made well-supported findings that Rimal’s testimony was vague and inconsistent

with her written declaration. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d at 1041–42. Further, 1

Rimal received due process through a full and fair hearing and meaningful BIA

review. Rimal was provided a competent translator at the hearing, see Hartooni v.

INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1994), and was not prejudiced by either the IJ’s

passing reference to a report not in evidence or gaps in the hearing transcript, see Lata

v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DENIED.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Eastern District of Texas Headwater Research LLC 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Headwater Research LLC 09/05/2023 /s/ Neil A. Rubin Neil A. Rubin CA Bar No. 250761

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 nrubin@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Plaintiff

v.

AT&T Inc. et al

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 280
EX-10.75



 EXHIBIT 10.75 
  

													
	 	  	(Unaudited)	 
	  	  	Year ended	 
	 (in thousands)
	  	Dec. 31,
2011	 	  	Dec. 31,
2010	 	  	Dec. 31,
2009	 
	 EBITDA(1)
	  	$	229,558	  	  	$	209,567	  	  	$	163,081	  
		  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 
	 Reconciliation of EBITDA:
	  				  				  			
	 Net Income
	  	 	126,105	  	  	 	98,847	  	  	 	75,111	  
	 Add: Income taxes
	  	 	71,286	  	  	 	52,409	  	  	 	41,222	  
	 Add: Interest expense and other, net, the Ed Hardy gain and loss on marketable securities
	  	 	24,194	  	  	 	49,552	  	  	 	38,733	  
				
	 Add: Depreciation and amortization of certain intangibles
	  	 	7,973	  	  	 	8,759	  	  	 	8,015	  
		  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 
	 EBITDA
	  	$	229,558	  	  	$	209,567	  	  	$	163,081	  
		  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 	  	  
	  
	 

  

	(1)	 EBITDA, a non-GAAP financial measure, represents net income before income taxes, interest, other non-operating gains and losses, depreciation and
amortization expenses. The Company believes EBITDA provides additional information for determining its ability to meet future debt service requirements, investing and capital expenditures. 



 

													
	 	  	(Unaudited)	 
	  	  	Year ended	 
	 (in thousands)
	  	Dec. 31,
2011	 	 	Dec. 31,
2010	 	 	Dec. 31,
2009	 
	 Free Cash Flow(2)
	  	$	179,213	  	 	$	166,571	  	 	$	134,843	  
		  	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 
	 Reconciliation of Free Cash Flow:
	  				 				 			
	 Net Income
	  	 	126,105	  	 	 	98,847	  	 	 	75,111	  
				
	 Add: Non-cash income taxes, non-cash interest related to convertible debt, depreciation, amortization of certain intangibles and
finance fees, non-cash compensation expense, bad debt expense, net equity earnings from certain joint ventures, non-cash gain/loss from sale of trademarks, re-measurement of investments and loss on marketable securities
	  	 	56,350	  	 	 	70,914	  	 	 	63,605	  
				
	 Less: Capital expenditures
	  	 	(3,242	) 	 	 	(3,190	) 	 	 	(3,873	) 
		  	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 
	 Free Cash Flow
	  	$	179,213	  	 	$	166,571	  	 	$	134,843	  
		  	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 	 	  
	  
	 

  

	(2)	 Free Cash Flow, a non-GAAP financial measure, represents net income before depreciation, amortization, non-cash compensation expense, bad debt
expense, net equity earnings from certain joint ventures, non-cash income taxes, non-cash interest related to convertible debt, non-cash gains/losses from sale of trademarks, non-cash loss on marketable securities and re-measurement of investments,
less capital expenditures. The Free Cash Flow also excludes any changes in Balance Sheet items. The Company believes Free Cash Flow is useful in evaluating its financial condition because it is representative of cash flow from operations that is
available for repaying debt, investing and capital expenditures.
Shawn R. BOUGH, Petitioner, v. Kenneth D. HUTCHISON, Warden.

No. 19-7316.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11

Statement re: Computation of per share earnings


     The following table sets forth the calculation of total number of shares
used in the computation of net earnings (loss) per common share:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                          ------------------------
                                                               1996                  1995                 1994
                                                               ----                  ----                 ----
<S>                                                          <C>                 <C>                  <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding............       13,000,651           7,353,584            3,329,159
Incremental shares assumed to be outstanding
  related to Common Stock, stock options and
  warrants granted....................................        1,632,852              82,849              264,721
Convertible preferred stock (assumed converted
  1 for 1 basis following the 1 for 2.3 reverse
  Common Stock split through June 24, 1994,
  the date such shares were converted)................               --                  --              738,024
                                                            -----------          ----------           ----------

Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding - primary.............       14,633,503           7,436,433            4,331,904
                                                            ===========          ==========           ==========

Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding - fully diluted.......       15,140,494           7,436,433            4,331,904
                                                            ===========          ==========           ==========
</TABLE>
Bruce Randol MERRYMAN, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 19-5934

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
EXHIBIT 10.2

    

    

    SCHEDULE A TO EXHIBIT 10.1

    

    

    The following individuals entered into Executive Group Life Split Dollar Plans with The Ohio Valley Bank Company identified below which are
        identical to the Executive Group Life Split Dollar Plan, dated December 31, 2011, between Thomas E. Wiseman and The Ohio Valley Bank Company filed herewith.

    

    

    	
            Name

          	 	
            Date of Agreement

          
	 	 	 
	
            Larry E. Miller II

          	 	
            August 19, 2009

          
	 	 	 
	
            Jeffrey E. Smith

          	 	
            August 20, 2009
Joel Darnell PATTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7449.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT
31.4
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 I, Ray
Sienko, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Century Casinos,
Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
disclosed in this quarterly report any change 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 officers 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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 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: May
27, 2005
 
 
 /s/ Ray
Sienko
 ________________________________
 Ray
Sienko
 Chief
Accounting Officer
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382

v. (Lead Case)

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/BA VERIZON

WIRELESS.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor,

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380

v. (Member Case)

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T SERVICES, 

INC., AND AT&T CORP., 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor,

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381

(Member Case)

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor,

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JOHN D. HAYNES

Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, John D. Haynes, enters his appearance in 

the above-referenced proceedings for Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon” or 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 39 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 177
-2-

“Defendant”). Defendant respectfully requests that the court take note of this Notice of Appearance and 

makes John D. Haynes its counsel of record in this lawsuit. Copies of all communications and other 

documents filed in the above-referenced proceedings that are not filed via ECF should be emailed or 

faxed to John D. Haynes at the address set forth below.

Dated: December 1, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John D. Haynes

John D. Haynes (GA Bar No. 340599) 

 john.haynes@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

1201 West Peachtree Street 

Suite 4900 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404)881-7000 

Facsimile: (404)881-7777 

Counsel for Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a 

Verizon Wireless 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 39 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 178
-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of December, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send notification of such 

filing upon Counsel of Record. 

//s/ John D. Haynes

John D. Haynes (GA Bar No. 340599)

 John.haynes@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

1201 West Peachtree Street 

Suite 4900

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: (404)881-7000 

Facsimile: (404)881-7777

Counsel for Defendant Cellco Partnership 

d/b/a Verizon Wireless

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 39 Filed 12/01/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 179
Exhibit 8

Redacted in its entirety

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 39-10 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 503
Deandre Antoine STURGES, petitioner, v. Cindi S. CURTIN, Warden.

No. 17-9004.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Neil GILLESPIE, petitioner, v. REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, et al.

No. 17-8689.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
Order entered January 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00998-CR

KEVIN DEWAYNE EDWARDS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 28935-422

ORDER

Appellant’s December 31, 2012 third motion for extension to extend the time to file 

appellant’s brief is DENIED. 

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 
ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Hajes RABAIA, Petitioner, v. Gubir GREWAL, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.

No. 19-6805

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT D

(Filed under seal)

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 20-4 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 208
Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 20-4 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 209
Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 20-4 Filed 10/17/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 210
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                        Computation of Net Loss Per Share

                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                               March 31,
                                                          1997           1996
                                                       (unaudited)   (unaudited)

Net loss                                              $   (704,209)  $  (43,167)

Loss per common and common equivalent share:

   Weighted average number of shares of
   common stock outstanding during the
   periods after giving effect to the
   one-for-three reverse stock split                    12,087,997    1,326,522

   Common equivalent shares from stock
   options issued during the 12-month period
   prior to the registration statement filing 
   using the treasury stock method                               -      198,924

   Conversion of the Series A Convertible
   Preferred Stock using the if-converted method                 -    4,959,901

   Conversion of the Series B Convertible
   Preferred Stock using the if-converted method                 -    2,591,613
                                                      -------------  -----------

   Shares used in calculation of net loss
   per share                                            12,087,997    9,076,960

   Net loss per common and common equivalent share    $      (0.06)  $    (0.00)
                                                      =============  ===========
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
                
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                           60,613
<SECURITIES>                     0      
<RECEIVABLES>                    64,206
<ALLOWANCES>                     295,292
<INVENTORY>                      47,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 829,358
<PP&E>                           1,845,939
<DEPRECIATION>                   1,178,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   2,837,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            4,563,731
<BONDS>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<COMMON>                         21,154,910
<OTHER-SE>                       80,340,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     2,837,837
<SALES>                          586,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 822,580
<CGS>                            1,739,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    14,523,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               3,881,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  0     
<INCOME-TAX>                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (13,700,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     (18,216,582)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (1.35)
        

</TABLE>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC. et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00397-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC. et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00398-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC (“Headwater”) respectfully moves for the Court to 

enter the Supplemental Protective Order attached as Exhibit A. Defendants do not oppose. 

The Court previously entered a Protective Order to protect party and non-party 

confidential business information in the above-referenced action on December 27, 2023 (Dkt. 

No. 43) (“Protective Order”).

Google LLC (“Google”), a non-party to this action, intends to produce confidential 

source code and other documents in this action that include or incorporate confidential 

business information (“CBI”) belonging to Google. The Parties and Google have agreed to 

provisions in addition to those contained in the Protective Order to protect such Google CBI. 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2299
2

Therefore, Headwater respectfully requests that the Court enter the Supplemental 

Protective Order attached as Exhibit A.

Dated: October 30, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marc Fenster

Marc Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Brian Ledahl

CA State Bar No. 186579

Ben Wang

CA State Bar No. 228712

Paul Kroeger

CA State Bar No. 229074

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Kristopher Davis

CA State Bar No. 329627

James S. Tsuei

CA State Bar No. 285530

Philip Wang

CA State Bar No. 262239

Amy Hayden

CA State Bar No. 287026

Dale Chang

CA State Bar No. 248567

James Milkey

CA State Bar No. 281283

Jason M. Wietholter

CA State Bar No. 337139

Adam S. Hoffman

CA State Bar No. 218740 

Qi (Peter)Tong

TX State Bar No. 24119042

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

headwater@raklaw.com 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2300
3

Andrea L. Fair

TX State Bar No. 24078488

MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC

1507 Bill Owens Parkway 

Longview, Texas 75604 

Telephone: 903-757-6400 

andrea@millerfairhenry.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

Headwater Research LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2301
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 30, 2024, all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via CM/ECF.

/s/ Kristopher Davis

Kristopher Davis 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies that on October 30, 2024, counsel for all parties met and conferred 

in accordance with L.R. CV-7(h). This motion is unopposed.

/s/ Kristopher Davis

Kristopher Davis

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 10/30/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2302
Exhibit
32.1
 
 
 Certification
of Co Chief Executive Officer
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Century Casinos, 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”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:
 
 (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and
 
 (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
  Date:  May
8, 2009
   /s/ Erwin Haitzmann
 Erwin
Haitzmann
 Co Chief
Executive Officer