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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1976

CALISTER SIMANGWI, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals.

Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 20, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Theodore Nkwenti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. 

Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michelle G. 

Latour, Assistant Director, Nairi M. Simonian, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Calister Simangwi, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration 

judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

 Before this court, Simangwi challenges the 

determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for 

asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying 

eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence 

[s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder 

could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. 

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed 

the evidence of record and conclude that Simangwi fails to show 

that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we 

cannot grant the relief that she seeks. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Simangwi’s 

request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of 

proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even 

though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant 

who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for 

withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” 

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because 

2 
3 

Simangwi failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she 

cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. 

 We also find that substantial evidence supports the 

finding that Simangwi failed to meet the standard for relief 

under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an 

applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that 

he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country 

of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). We find that 

Simangwi failed to make the requisite showing before the 

immigration court. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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 DENIED
Rodney HOGEN, et al., Petitioners v. Steven C. HOGEN.

No. 19-193

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.
Martin Leyva VALDEZ, Jr., Petitioner v. W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden

No. 19-5233

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Luis Fernandez MORALES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7940.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
 I, W. Anderson Geater, Jr., certify that:
 1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Origen Financial, Inc.;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 financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
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)), and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(g)) for the registrant and have:
     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
function):
   /s/ W. Anderson Geater, Jr.

W. Anderson Geater, Jr.,
    
    
    
    Dated: August 4, 2008Chief Financial Officer of Origen Financial, Inc.
 40
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.2C

                               EXTENSION AGREEMENT

EXTENSION AGREEMENT entered into as of the first day of October 2002 by and
between Alicomp, a division of Alicare Inc, (Alicomp) with offices located at
730 Broadway, N.Y. 10003 and Infocrossing Inc. (IFOX) (formerly known as
Computer Outsourcing Services Inc. with offices located at 2 Christie Heights,
Leonia N.J. 07605.

WHEREAS the parties entered in an agreement dated March 21, 1997, (effective
October 1, 1997) (the Service Agreement) pursuant to which IFOX provides certain
computer related services to Alicomp and a Marketing Agreement dated March 21,
1997 (the Marketing Agreement) pursuant to which the parties share resources and
clients (collectively the Service Agreement and the Marketing Agreement are
referred to herein as the March 21, 1997 Agreement); and,

WHEREAS the term of the March 21, 1997 Agreement expires on September 30, 2002;
and

WHEREAS Alicomp and IFOX have begun negotiations with respect to the terms and
conditions of a new Service Agreement and a new Marketing Agreement but such
negotiations have not yet been completed; and

WHEREAS Alicomp desires to continue receiving services and benefits of the March
21, 1997 Agreement from IFOX during the course of the negotiations; and

WHEREAS IFOX desires to continue to provide the services and benefits of the
March 21, 1997 Agreement during the course of the negotiations;

NOW THEREFORE, in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties have agreed as
follows:

1.  IFOX shall continue to provide Alicomp with all of the services set forth in
    the March 21, 1997 Agreement upon the same terms and conditions as set forth
    in the March 21, 1997 Agreement.
2.  All of the terms of the March 21, 1997 Agreement, including but not limited
    to fee schedules and payment terms, shall remain in full force and effect,
    as if set forth at length herein, except as set forth in paragraph three
    hereof.
3.  The term of the March 21, 1997 Agreement shall be extended from October 1,
    2002 until March 31, 2003 and shall thereafter automatically renew itself
    for successive thirty day periods unless one party gives the other written
    notice thirty days prior to the date that extended March 21, 1997 Agreement
    would otherwise expire that the party does not wish to extend the term, in
    which event the extended March 21, 1997 Agreement shall terminate without
    further renewal.

/s/ Robert B. Wallach                                /s/ Arthur Kurek
-------------------------------                      --------------------------
Infocrossing, Inc                                    Alicomp
By Robert B. Wallach, President                      By Arthur, Kurek, President
Therian Cornelia WIMBUSH, Petitioner, v. R.L. CONWAY, et al.

No. 19-7619.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
#### A. Donald Emerich, Plaintiff, *v.*Joseph A. Pfister, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

May 21, 1973.

*Carl A. Hayward*for defendant. *Connolly & Mirch*for plaintiff.

Edwabd S. Conway, J.

This is a motion by the defendant for an order permitting him to serve an amended answer pursuant to subdivision (b) of CPLR 3025.

The underlying action on which the instant motion is based was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for alleged personal injuries and property damages sustained as the result of an automobile accident that occurred on January 11, 1970.

The complaint was served on or about October 3, 1972 within the three-year statutory period. The original answer was interposed by the defendant on October 6, 1972. The defendant now wishes to serve an amended answer which, in addition to containing a general denial of the allegations in the complaint, asserts a counterclaim for property damage arising out of the same accident.

The plaintiff opposes the motion, contending that the proposed counterclaim is barred by the Statute of Limitations.

There is no question that the period of limitation applicable here is three years, or that the length of the period is unaffected by the fact that the claim is raised as a counterclaim rather than in an independent action.

Subdivision (e) of CPLR 203 is controlling and provides:

> “ (e) Claim in amended pleading. A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions,, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.”

This subdivision is new, effects a change in prior laws and is patterned after subdivision (c) of rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (U. S. Code, tit. 28, Appendix) which is based on the idea that a party who is notified of litigation concerning *729a given transaction or occurrence is entitled to no more protection from Statutes of Limitation than one who is informed of the precise legal description of the rights sought to be enforced. *(Andrews*v. *Donabella,*60 Misc 2d 1007; 1 Weinstein-KornMiller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 203.30.) Even though the statute has run, the amendment is held to relate back to the date of the commencement of the original action. The original pleading need only give notice of the occurrence and this notice tolls the Statute of Limitations as to causes of action arising out of the occurrence initially pleaded *(Andrews*v. *Donabella, supra;*McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, CPLR 203, Practice Commentaries by Joseph M. McLaughlin, p. 123). The original complaint herein certainly gave notice of the occurrence and of a possible existence of a property damage counterclaim within the meaning of subdivision (e) of CPLR 203.

The motion by the defendant to serve an amended answer to assert a counterclaim is granted.
Timothy Eugene SAMPSON, Petitioner v. Cathy M. GARRETT, et al.

No. 19-5945

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 246/13 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 246 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6113 July 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 246

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6113 July 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 246/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2014/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)

   (1
  ) | 1 |
| 2018/C 246/02 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity and Directive 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment and repealing Directive 1999/5/EC (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)

   (1
  ) | 23 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 246/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2014/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)

   (1
  )

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)

1

1

2018/C 246/02

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity and Directive 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment and repealing Directive 1999/5/EC (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)

   (1
  )

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)

1

23

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1520

_____________________________

LEMUEL L. COOPER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

January 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Lemuel L. Cooper, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.
CERTIFICATE
                              
      The  undersigned, Controller of SMITH BARNEY
AGGRESSIVE GROWTH FUND INC. (the "Fund"), hereby certifies
that the Fund has received  full payment, in accordance with
the provisions of its Prospectus, for 20,455,979 common
stock,  par  value $0.01 per share, the sales  of  which are
reported in the Fund's Rule 24f-2 Notice covering the fiscal
year ended  August 31, 1997 and that the facts otherwise
stated in such Notice are true.


                                   Thomas M. Reynolds
                                   Controller

Dated:         October 3, 1997
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Directors of
Smith Barney Appreciation Fund Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated February 9, 1996 with
respect to the Smith Barney Appreciation Fund Inc. incorporated
herein by reference and to the references to our Firm under the
headings "Financial Highlights" in the Prospectuses and
"Counsel and Auditors" in the Statement of Additional
Information.




                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



New York, New York
February 27, 1996
# C_2018300EN.01000101.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9022 — Watling Street Capital Partners/Sisaho International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 300/01)

On 7 August 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9022. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9022. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# Official Journal C 162/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 162 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 643 May 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 162

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 643 May 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2021/C 162/01 | Position (EU) No 11/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) No 912/2010, (EU) No 1285/2013 and (EU) No 377/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EUAdopted by the Council on 19 April 2021 | 1 |
| 2021/C 162/02 | Statement of the Council’s reasons: Position (EU) No 11/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) No 912/2010, (EU) No 1285/2013 and (EU) No 377/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EU | 84 |

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COUNCIL

2021/C 162/01

Position (EU) No 11/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) No 912/2010, (EU) No 1285/2013 and (EU) No 377/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EUAdopted by the Council on 19 April 2021

1

2021/C 162/02

Statement of the Council’s reasons: Position (EU) No 11/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) No 912/2010, (EU) No 1285/2013 and (EU) No 377/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EU

84

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Antonio Leonard BROWN, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-6328.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN RE Angel RUIZ-RIVERA, Petitioner

No. 19-5203

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition *296for a writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 CERTIFICATIONS I, Ronald A. Klein, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Origen Financial,
Inc.;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 financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 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 based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  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 function):




---



##### 



Page 2  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Dated:
August 12, 2005
    
    /s/ Ronald A. KleinRonald A. Klein,Chief Executive Officer of OrigenFinancial, Inc.
Tatyana Evgenievna DREVALEVA, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al.

No. 18-8764.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 23, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Adriano Kruel BUDRI, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

No. 19-198

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

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