alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

January 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk REVISED JANUARY 18, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60933 Summary Calendar

SIGFREDO ANTONIO GALLEGOS; IVETTE MITCHELLE HONORES-WALAQUEZ; JOSE ANTONIO GALLEGOS-HONORES,

Petitioners,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

(A75 346 184) (A75 346 185) (A75 346 186)

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sigfredo Antonio Gallegos, his wife, Ivette Mitchelle HonoresWalaquez, and his son, Jose Antonio Gallegos-Honores, seek review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of their motion

to reconsider the denial of their motion to reopen their appeal.

The claim underlying their motion to reopen is for ineffective

assistance of counsel.2

The Gallegoses claim the BIA abused its discretion in

determining that, because they failed to show the y filed a

grievance with the Texas Bar Association against their former

attorney, they did not meet the third prong of Matter of Lozada

, 19

I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988). The Gallegoses contend they gave

a reasonable explanation for failing to state whether they filed a

grievance: Rule 2.16 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure

states the filing and pendency of a grievance against an attorney

is completely confidential and may not be disclosed to any person

or entity except by court order or if the respondent waives

confidentiality. They also claim the BIA abused its discretion in

holding they failed to show prejudice resulting from their former

counsel’s failure to file a brief in their appeal to the BIA.

The BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for

abuse of discretion. Z hao v. Gonzales

, 404 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir.

2005) (motion to reconsider properly denied where petitioner “did

not identify a change in the law, a misapplication of the law, or

an aspect of the case that the BIA overlooked”).

The Gallegoses did not satisfy their burden of proof before

the BIA to demonstrate a prima facie case that, had the brief been

filed, they would have been entitled to relief from deportation.

Miranda-Lores v. I.N.S.
, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994)

.

Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by determining the

Gallegoses failed to show prejud ice. Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft , 2523

F.3d 383, 385 n.2 (5th Cir. 2001) (to establish ineffective

assistance of counsel, alien must demonstrate counsel’s performance

resulted in substantial prejudice). Because the BIA did not abuse

i ts discretion in that determination, we need not decide whet her

the BIA abused its discretion in determining the Gallegoses failed

to meet the third prong of Matter of Lozada

.

DENIED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1253 

To prohibit foreign assistance to Pakistan until the tuition assistance program 

of the Department of Defense is fully funded. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2013 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit foreign assistance to Pakistan until the tuition 

assistance program of the Department of Defense is fully 

funded. 

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 ‘‘Sequester Pakistan 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO PAKI7 STAN. 

8 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no for9 eign assistance may be provided to Pakistan until expendi10 tures for the military tuition assistance program under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1253 IH

1 sections 1784a and 2007 of title 10, United States Code, 

2 for fiscal year 2013 are at least equal to expenditures for 

3 such tuition assistance for fiscal year 2012. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10575 Summary Calendar

MATILDE ROSALES Plaintiff - Appellee v. JOSE PENA, In his individual and official capacity; WILLIAM PHILLIPS, In his individual and official capacity Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-588
Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * These police officers appeal from the district court’s judgment denying their qualified immunity defense to plaintiff’s claim ofassault and battery in the
course of an unlawful arrest. Appellants’ briefs present a spirited advocacy of the record on their behalf. That will not suffice in view of the district court’s decision that fact issues are raised by the evidenc e in favor of the plaintiff’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 28, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-10575 Summary Calendar

2 claim. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction of the appeal. See K inney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 2004). DISMISSED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: John Ruff and Catherine Loth, Individually and as Next Friends of A.R., a Minor Child v. The University of St.

Thomas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 0 0 875

- CV

Trial court case number: 201 6

- 1 9 61 6

Trial court: 1 90 th District Court of Harris County

Appellant s
, John Ruff and Catherine Loth, Individually and as Next Friends of A.R., a Minor Child

, have filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the clerk’s and reporter’s records to January 15, 2018. The clerk’s record and reporter’s record were due to be filed on December 18, 2017. That day , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant s that the co urt reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record had informed the

Court that appellants had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record

and directed appellant s to provide proof that t he y had paid, or made arrangements to pa y, for the reporter’s record or are entitled to proceed without payment of costs by January 17, 2018

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(b) , 37.3(c). The Clerk of this Court also notified the trial court clerk and the parties that a clerk’s record ha d not been timely filed and requested the trial court clerk , no later than January 19, 2018 , to file the clerk’s record or advise the Court if appellants had not made arrangements to pay for preparation of the

clerk’s record

. See id. 35.3(a), 37.3(a)(1)

. Accordingly , we dismiss as moot appellants ’

motion to extend the time for filing the clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this appeal

. 1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 1 1 , 2018

1 The trial court clerk or court reporter may request an extension to file the record in this

Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c).
**BERNARD FINANCIAL SERVICING GROUP**

20700 Civic Center Drive

Suite 240

Southfield, Michigan 48076

 

Tel: (248) 799-9200

Fax: (248) 799-9208

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION ON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION ABCRITERIA

 

 

Bernard Financial Corporation (the "Asserting Party") isresponsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2019, and the yearended with the following servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB: 1122 (d) (1) (i), 1122 (d)(l) (ii), 1122 (d) (1) (iv), 1122 (d) (1) (v), 1122 (d) (2) (i), 1122 (d) (2)(ii), 1122 (d) (2) (iii), 1122 (d) (2) (iv), 1122 (d) (2) (v), 1122 (d) (2)(vi), 1122 (d) (2) (vii), 1122 (d) (4) (i), 1122 (d) (4) (ii), 1122 (d) (4)(iii), 1122 (d) (4) (iv), 1122 (d) (4) (v), 1122 (d) (4) (vi), 1122 (d) (4)(viii), 1122 (d) (4) (ix), 1122 (d) (4) (x), 1122 (d) (4) (xi), 1122 (d) (4)(xii), 1122 (d) (4) (xiii) and 1122 (d) (4) (xiv). These servicing criteriaapply to public asset-backed issuances commencing after December 31, 2005.

 

The Assorting Party has assessed its compliance with the applicableservicing criteria for the reporting period and has not identified anyinstances of material noncompliance. The Asserting Party has concluded thatthey have complied, in all material respects, with the applicable servicingcriteria as outlined above for those asset-backed securitization transactionsserviced by the Asserting Party. 

 

Tramer, Shore & Zwick, CPA's, an independent registered publicaccounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment ofcompliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the reporting period setforth in this assertion.

 

 

/s/ Dennis S. Bernard

Dennis S.Bernard

President

BernardFinancial Corporation

 

February 5,2020

 

 

**RealEstate Finance and Investment Brokers**

(logo) MBA

MEMBER
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00906

- CV

David MAUK

, Appellant

v.

PIPE CREEK WATER WELL, LLC and Robert Rae Powell,

Appellees

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 00386

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Appellees’ motion to strike Appendix 2 to Appellant’s brief i s MOOT. Costs of this appeal are

taxed against David Mauk.

SIGNED May 20, 2015.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
96-1149 Fuller v. Zavaras

Attachment not available electronically.*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. -2- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/19/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ STEVEN M. TULLER, a/k/a STEVEN MICHAEL TULLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, DONICE NEAL, GARY WATKINS, LORRAINE DIAZ, EVELYN FISH, ROBERT D. MILLER, Dr., Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-1149 (D.C. No. 94-N-1304) (D. Colorado)

_____________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

_____________________ Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

_____________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore1 The district court's judgment was entered April 8 , 1996; the Notice of

Appeal was filed April 12, 1996. -3- ordered submitted without oral argument. Mr. Tuller is a state inmate and pro se litigant. The district court granted an adverse summary judgment and allowed Mr. Tuller to appeal in forma pauperis . We affirm the summary judgment granted by the di strict court. 1 Mr. Tuller commenced this civil rights action again st several prison officials. Defendants moved for summary judgment w ith supporting evidentiary materials. In a ten-page recommendation, the magis trate judge recommended the motion be granted. The district court reviewed the recommendation de novo and granted the motion. Attached hereto is a copy of t he recommendation and the order. Mr. Tuller appeals the order of the trial court and asserts: (1) He is "locked up in administrative segregation and has no abilityto investigate the facts"; and (2) the trial court did not give Mr. Tuller an oppo rtunity "to submit his motion and brief in opposition to defendants various motio ns for summary judgment."-4-

The record on appeal does not support Mr. Tuller. In fact, it shows the contrary. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's re commendations and the district court's order. Entered for the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
Exhibit 32.2











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Amendment Number 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Energy Holdings International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Adair, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:





(i)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(ii)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 18, 2010

/s/    Jalal AlghaniJalal AlghaniChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer





This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018195EN.01004601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/46 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8928 — Francisco Partners/VeriFone)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 195/13)

1.

On 30 May 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018195EN.01004601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Francisco Partners Management LP (‘Francisco Partners’, United States), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | VeriFone Systems, Inc. (‘VeriFone’, United States). |

Francisco Partners acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of VeriFone.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   Francisco Partners: a private equity firm exclusively focused on investments in software and technology-enabled businesses,

—   VeriFone: primarily active in the design, manufacture and supply of point of sale (‘POS’) payment devices and related services.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018195EN.01004601-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8928 — Francisco Partners/VeriFone

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018195EN.01004601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018195EN.01004601-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 36157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12912]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 15, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 8, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 745 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2022-65, CP2022-
71.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-12912 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 17

- 00160

- CV

ROBERT B. JAMES, DDS , INC. ; Robert B. James, DDS, Individually; Jean James, Individually; and Alexis Mei Pyles, Individually, Appellants

v.

Cassandra J. ELKINS , DDS Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 19860 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial co urt’s order denying Alexis Mei Pyles’s “Anti

- SLAPP” Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code is REVERSED IN PART . We RENDER an order dismissing Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS ’s claims against Alexis Mei Pyles and Robert B. James, DDS, Inc.

, for defamation, business disparagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy, to the extent those claims involve any statements Alexis Mei Pyles made to the San Antonio Police Departme nt. The trial court’s order as to Alexis Mei Pyles’s “Anti

- SLAPP” Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

The trial court’s order denying the James Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act is REVERSED IN PART

. We RENDER an order dismissing Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS ’s claims against appellants Robert B. James , DDS and Rob ert B. James, DDS, Inc. , for business disparagement and intentional infliction of emotional distress to the extent those claims involve any statements Robert B. James , DDS made to the San Antonio Police Department. We further RENDER an order dismissing Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS ’s claims against appellants Jean James and Robert B. James, DDS, Inc. for defamation, business disparagement, and intentional infliction of emotional distress to the extent those claims involve any statements Jean James made to the San Antonio Police Department. The trial court’s order denying the James04

- 17

- 00160

- CV

- 2

- Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

As to the claims on which we render a dismissal, we REMAND this case for a determination of costs and attorney’s fees under T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE § 27.009.

Costs of this appeal are taxed against the party incurring the same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.4.

SIGNED May 30, 2018.

_____________________________ Ire ne Rios, Justice
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Richard P. Brown, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Atlantic Coast Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (the“Registrant”) for the period ended March 31, 2005(the “Report”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this Report, fairlypresent 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 areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand 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; and           (c) disclosed in this Report any changes in the    Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (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 Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and           (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 15, 2005     /s/ Richard P. Brown       Richard P. Brown     Chief Executive Officer of Atlantic Coast     Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
Matthew DAVIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5669

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Edward MERRITT, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-7103

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

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