alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALAMGIR AKOND,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73108

Agency No. A070-804-483

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

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

Alamgir Akond, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

JUL 19 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73108

discretion the denial of motions to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894

(9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Akond’s contention that the BIA should have

tolled the time limitation on his motion to reopen because the BIA failed to address

his prior motion to reopen filed in 2002. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,

677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not

raised before the agency).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Akond’s motion to reopen

as untimely because the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s

order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to

reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Akond failed

to establish he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of that

deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (a petitioner may obtain equitable

tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel as long as “the petitioner acts

with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”). Moreover, the

BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Akond failed to present material

evidence of changed circumstances in Bangladesh to qualify for the regulatory

exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
3 08-73108

(requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that

conditions in country of nationality had changed).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
# The Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 3363

Sea Fisheries, England

Sea Fish Industry

# The Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014

Approved by both Houses of Parliament

Made

18th December 2014

Laid before Parliament

6th January 2015

Coming into force in accordance with article 1

The Secretary of State, in whom the powers conferred by section 15(1) and (2) of the Fisheries Act 1981(1) are now vested(2), makes this Scheme in exercise of those powers and with the approval of the Treasury.                        

## Citation and commencementU.K.

1.  This Scheme may be cited as the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment)                     Scheme 2014 and comes into force on the day after the day on which it is made.                  

## Amendment of the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012U.K.

2.  For paragraph 13(3)(b) of the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012(3), substitute—                  

“(b)if a payment has already been made under this Part in respect of the installation of approved software on the boat, unless                           the application relates to the updating of that software”.                  

George Eustice

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

18th December 2014

We consent

Mark Lancaster

Gavin Barwell

Two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

18th December 2014

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Scheme)

This Scheme amends the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012 (S.I. 2012/1375) (“the 2012 Scheme”). The effect of the amendment is to allow the Secretary of State to make payments in response to applications                     by the owners, charterers and masters of fishing boats (or their representatives) for funding for updates to software already                     installed on boats under the 2012 Scheme.                  

A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary                     or public sectors is foreseen.                  

1

1981 c. 29. See section 18(1) for the definition of “the Ministers”. Sections 15(2) and 18(1) were amended by S.I. 1999/1820.                           

2

The function of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was transferred to the Secretary of State by article 2(2)                              of                           

the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/794).                           

3

S.I. 2012/1375, which applies in England and in relation to English fishing boats.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: December 11, 2014 518740

________________________________ In the Matter of ERICK M. CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT COREY BEDARD, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 21, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ.

__________ Erick M. Campbell, Attica, petitioner pro se.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug use after his urine twice tested positive for buprenorphine. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge with the explanation that he has a severe drug problem. At the conclusion of the tier III disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty as charged. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. We confirm. Given petitioner's plea of guilty with an explanation, he is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of-2- 518740

the evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Fields v Prack, 120 AD3d 1510 [2014]; Matter of Robinson v Prack, 119 AD3d 1309, 1309 [2014]). To the extent that petitioner contends that he was incompetent to adequately participate in the hearing, the confidential testimony establishes that the Hearing Officer properly considered petitioner's mental health status and ability to participate in the hearing (see Matter of Lashway v Fischer, 110 AD3d 1420, 1420 [2013]; Matter of Sabino v Prack, 101 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2012]). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and are either unpersuasive or unpreserved for our review. Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and H & T PROPERTIES, INC. v. DAVIDSON COUNTY.

No. 495P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Thomas E. Terrell, Jr., Greensboro, Laura M. Loyek, Research Triangle park, for Alltel, et al.

Robert C. Hedrick, County Attorney, Lexington, for Davidson County.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of October 2007 by Petitioners in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

J.M

, a Child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 1644

[ February 9, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; M ichael James Orlando , Judge; L.T. Case No.

21001802DLA

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, G ROSS and L EVINE

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 3, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00504-CV

VALARIS PLC, Appellant

V.

GORDON GILLIES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-36729

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 15, 2022. On October 26, 

2022, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and remand to the trial court 

for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement to settle. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1)–(2). We reinstate the appeal and grant the motion. 
2

The appeal is dismissed, and mandate is ordered to issue immediately per the 

request of the parties. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 2, 2017 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00156-CV GUARDIANSHIP OF ROSEMARY ELL, AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-14-02036-3 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Brown Opinion by Justice Bridges Appellants appeal from the trial court’s or der dismissing the guard ianship proceeding. By letter dated March 14, 2017, the Court questione d its jurisdiction over this appeal as it appeared the notice of appeal was un timely. We instructed appellants to file a letter brief with an opportunity for appellee to file a response. The parties complied. When a timely post-judgment motion extending the appellate timetable is filed, a notice of appeal is due ninety days after the date th e judgment is signed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(a). Without a timely filed notice of app eal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1(b). The trial court signed the dismissal order on October 19, 2016. Appellants filed a timely motion for new trial on November 18, 2016. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(a). Accordingly, the notice of appeal was due on January 17, 2017, ninety days after the date the dismissal order was signed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(a). Appellants filed a notice of appeal on February 14, 2017, twenty-eight days pa st the deadline.–2– In their jurisdictional brief, appellants e xplain that, although the trial court signed an order denying their motion for new trial on Decem ber 30, 2016, they did not receive notice of the order until January 26, 2017. Thus, they argue, th eir notice of appeal f iled on February 14, 2017 was timely as it was filed within thirty days of Ja nuary 26, 2017. We disagree. It is the date the judgment is signed, not the date an order denying a motion for new trial is signed, that triggers the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(a); Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Houston , 988 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). Because appellants failed to file a timely no tice of appeal, the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. We dismiss the appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

170156F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
GUARDIANSHIP OF ROSEMARY ELL, AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON No. 05-17-00156-CV On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-14-02036-3. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Myers and Br own participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee Mitchell Roll recover his costs of this appeal from appellants Kathy Marthe and Wilmer Roll.
Judgment entered May 2, 2017.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Eden  Bioscience Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the  period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,  Rhett R. Atkins,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant  to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of  1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 10, 2005

| | /s/
      Rhett R. Atkins                  
| | -------------------------------------------
| |                                            
| | Rhett
      R. Atkins                      
| | President
      and Chief Executive Officer

-27-

---
IN RE K.H.U.E.

No. COA08-950.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04JA1049, 04JA1050).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# The Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 3363

Sea Fisheries, England

Sea Fish Industry

# The Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014

Approved by both Houses of Parliament

Made

18th December 2014

Laid before Parliament

6th January 2015

Coming into force in accordance with article 1

The Secretary of State, in whom the powers conferred by section 15(1) and (2) of the Fisheries Act 1981(1) are now vested(2), makes this Scheme in exercise of those powers and with the approval of the Treasury.                        

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1Scheme modified (23.11.2020) by Fisheries Act 2020 (c. 22), Sch. 6 para. 5(1)(b)(4) (with s. 50, Sch. 4 para. 31)

## Citation and commencementU.K.

1.  This Scheme may be cited as the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment)                     Scheme 2014 and comes into force on the day after the day on which it is made.                  

## Amendment of the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012U.K.

2.  For paragraph 13(3)(b) of the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012(3), substitute—                  

“(b)if a payment has already been made under this Part in respect of the installation of approved software on the boat, unless                           the application relates to the updating of that software”.                  

George Eustice

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

We consent

Mark Lancaster

Gavin Barwell

Two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Scheme)

This Scheme amends the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012 (S.I. 2012/1375) (“the 2012 Scheme”). The effect of the amendment is to allow the Secretary of State to make payments in response to applications                     by the owners, charterers and masters of fishing boats (or their representatives) for funding for updates to software already                     installed on boats under the 2012 Scheme.                  

A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary                     or public sectors is foreseen.                  

1

1981 c. 29. See section 18(1) for the definition of “the Ministers”. Sections 15(2) and 18(1) were amended by S.I. 1999/1820.                           

2

The function of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was transferred to the Secretary of State by article 2(2)                              of                           

the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/794).                           

3

S.I. 2012/1375, which applies in England and in relation to English fishing boats.
STATE v. ELLIOTT.

No. COA08-139.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (07CRS50670, 07CRS50671).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# CE2004088EN.01006201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/62

---

(2004/C 88 E/0067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2058/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   ACP bananas

Subject:

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 (1) established a framework for temporary technical and financial assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas with a view to enabling them to adapt to new market conditions in the banana sector or to diversify where their products were insufficiently competitive.

1

Now, however, questions are being asked about the method used for the calculation of the assistance and about the transparency of that method, where double standards seem to apply.

In meetings with OCAB (the pineapple and banana growers central organisation), the Commission has already admitted that the use of statistics supplied by Eurostat results in the Regulation being the incorrectly implemented, but it has apparently taken no steps whatsoever to rectify the situation.

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 is correctly implemented?

---

(1)  OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 14.

1

---
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 2.12

                       [Unofficial English Translation]

(LOGO) B A N K  H A P O A L I M
THE BUSINESS DIVISION
THE MAIN MANAGEMENT
THE BUSINESS BRANCH
23 MENACHEM BEGIN STREET, TEL AVIV, 66183
DATE: MARCH 24, 2009

For the attention of:
TEFRON LTD.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

             RE: YOUR COVENANT DOCUMENT TO US, DATED APRIL 22, 2004

Whereas             In the Covenant document which you signed in our favor on
                    April 22, 2004 (hereinafter: "THE COVENANT DOCUMENT"), you
                    committed to us, INTER ALIA, that the ratio between the
                    total of your debts and obligations to us and to Israel
                    Discount Bank Ltd. versus the EBITDA, would not exceed 9.5
                    (nine and a half), based on your consolidated financial
                    statements (hereinafter: "THE SAID COVENANT");

And whereas         You have informed us that you will not meet the Said
                    Covenant in reports pursuant to your financial statements
                    with regard to the third quarter of 2008 and pursuant to
                    your annual financial statements for 2008, and you have
                    asked us, notwithstanding the foregoing, not to exercise our
                    rights pursuant to the said Covenant Document;

And whereas         We wish to inform you that we consent, on a one-time basis,
                    not to take any measures against you following the breach of
                    the Said Covenant, subject to the situation whereby the Said
                    Covenant is complied by you commencing from the financial
                    statements as of March 31, 2009 and thereafter, and that no
                    other cause shall be established for us to declare your
                    debts to us to be immediately due and payable;

Except as aforesaid, there shall be no change in the Covenant Document and in
the Said Covenant.

Our consent, as set forth above, is subject to your obtaining an identical
consent from Israel Discount Bank Ltd. and from Bank Leumi LeIsrael Ltd.

Sincerely yours,

Bank Hapoalim Ltd.
Main Management

         /s/ R. Heiner                      /s/ A. Solomon - Caplan
         -------------                      -----------------------
         R. HEINER                          A. SOLOMON - CAPLAN
```
----

(2004/C 33 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2386/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   Funding of health promotion projects

Under the European Community Health Promotion Programme, the Commission has funded 20 projects dedicated solely to health promotion, to a total in excess of EUR 9,5 m. Can the Commission provide a breakdown by project of both total costs and its own contribution? Have arrangements been made to monitor the results of individual projects? Can the Commission supply a full and properly documented analysis, rather than just an Internet reference?

----
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of AVP, Inc. hereby
certifies, to such officers' knowledge, that this Amendment No. 1 to the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of AVP, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2005
fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in this amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AVP, Inc.

                                         By:/s/ Leonard Armato
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Leonard Armato
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                         By:/s/ Andrew Reif
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Andrew Reif
                                             Chief Financial Officer

November 21, 2005