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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1225

PATRICK WANJEHIA GAKUO, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals.

Submitted: October 16, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA IMMIGRATION PRACTICE, Silver Spring, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney 

General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Yamileth 

G. HandUber, Joseph I. Frydman, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION 

LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Patrick Wanjehia Gakuo, a native and citizen of Kenya, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial 

of his applications for relief from removal. 

 Gakuo first challenges the determination that he 

failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal 

of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien 

“must show that the evidence 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 Gakuo fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gakuo cannot meet 

the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. 

INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 

480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below 

that Gakuo failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not 

that he would be tortured if removed to Kenya. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

2 
3 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Rule 13a-14 Certification**
I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Cronos Group (the “Registrant”);
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting ( as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and
(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of Registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 14, 2005
/s/ DENNIS J. TIETZ
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Form S-8 and the
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-07295)
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Director's Stock Option Plan and
Employees and Consultants Stock Option Agreement/Plan, the Form S-8
(Registration No. 333-58303) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, and 1998
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-87369)
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 on
Form S-3 to Form SB-2 (Form SB-2 No. 333-476-LA) for the registration of
4,477,402 shares of common stock and 328,500 warrants to purchase common stock,
and the Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-88051) for the registration of 2,014,036
shares of common stock, of our report dated February 18, 2000, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of SuperGen, Inc. included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 14, 2000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1394

RUFUS E. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United

States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:03-cv-00593-JAB)

Submitted: September 25, 2006 Decided: October 16, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus E. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rufus E. Thompson appeals the district court’s order

denying Thompson’s motion to vacate or set aside judgment pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Thompson v. Potter, No. 1:03-cv-00593-JAB

(M.D.N.C. filed Feb. 23, 2006; entered Feb. 24, 2006). We deny

Thompson’s motion to place his case in abeyance. 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.

AFFIRMED
State v. Adam Robert Jackson

397A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 29, 2016

Danielle Blass, Attorney at Law, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Jackson, Adam Robert.

Joseph A. Newsome, Attorney at Law, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 28th of December 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of December 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 4th day of January 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 50229 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Joe Angel Martinez,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:22
- CR
- 201 - 1

**___________________ ___________**  Before **Higginbotham, Stewart,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joe Angel Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 22, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50229 Document: 00516976719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2023No. 23
- 50229

2 therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further re sponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2 . Case: 23-50229 Document: 00516976719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2023
# C_2009193EN.01001902.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representing a hand holding a card with three triangles))

(Case T-414/07 (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a hand holding a card with three triangles - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 193/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, M. Chaminade and L. Paudrat, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and R. Bianchi, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 (Case R 290/2007-1), rejecting the application for registration of a sign representing a hand holding a card with three triangles as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
Motion granted, Appe al s dismissed, a nd Memorandum Opinion filed July 11 , 202 3

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 2

- 00 806

- C R N O

. 14

- 2 2

- 00 807

- CR NO. 14

- 2 2

- 00 808

- CR

ERIK U. LITTLE , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , A ppellee

On Appeal from the 22 8 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial C ourt Ca u se No s . 1488681, 1488682, & 148868 3

MEM ORANDUM OPINIO N Appellant Erik U. Little has signed and filed a written request to dismiss h is appeal s

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has no t delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request. Accordingly, we order the appeal s dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandate s immediately. See Te x. R. App. P. 2.2 PER CURIAM

P anel consists of Justic es Wise , Bourli ot , and Spain

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

y0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

140948 & (9)(14) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140948 

 COA: 296121 

Isabella CC: 05-001204-FC 

RICKY BROSS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2010 order 

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

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

motions to remand and for appointment of counsel are DENIED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            McLEODUSA INCORPORATED

          COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                 (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                    1996           1997           1998
                                                                 ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                                              <C>            <C>            <C> 
Computation of weighted average number of common 
   shares outstanding and common equivalent shares:
Common shares, Class A, outstanding at the
   beginning of the period                                           16,387         36,173         61,799
Common shares, Class B, outstanding at the
   beginning of the period (A)                                       15,626         15,626           --
Weighted average number of shares issued during
   the period                                                         8,493          3,175          1,008
Weighted average number of shares reissued from the
   treasury during the period 
                                                                 ----------     ----------     ----------
Weighted average number of common shares and
   common equivalent shares                                          40,506         54,974         62,807
                                                                 ==========     ==========     ==========

Net loss                                                         $  (22,346)    $  (79,910)    $ (124,912)
                                                                 ==========     ==========     ==========

Loss per common share                                            $    (0.55)    $    (1.45)    $    (1.99)
                                                                 ==========     ==========     ==========
</TABLE> 



(A)  The Class B common stock, $.01 par value per share is convertible on a one-
     for-one basis at any time at the option of the holder into Class A common
     stock. As of June 30, 1997, all shares of Class B common stock had been
     converted into shares of Class A common stock.

                                    Page 1
STATE of North Carolina v. Alfred Lamont BUTLER, aka Muhammad Hakeem

No. COA16-1255

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

NO ERROR.
Ex10.194 Jul RRA 7.25-2022


Exhibit 10.194


Counterpart to Registration Rights Agreement
July 10, 2014
The undersigned hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably agrees as a Guarantor, as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated May 6, 2014 by and among Endo Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Endo Finco Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Guarantors party thereto, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., relating to the 7.25% Senior Notes due 2022, to be bound by the terms and provisions of such Registration Rights Agreement.





Exhibit 10.194


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first written above.
	
			
	ENDO NETHERLANDS B.V.



	By: 
	/s/ Blaine Davis            

	Name: 
	 
	Blaine Davis 

	Title:   
	 
	Managing Director A

	 
	 
	 

	By: 
	/s/ Gert Jan Rietberg           

	Name: 
	 
	Gert Jan Rietberg

	Title:   
	 
	Managing Director B
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 Quarterly Report of WCA Waste Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Charles A. Casalinova, 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:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




By:
              /s/ Charles
      A. CasalinovaCharles
      A. CasalinovaChief
      Financial OfficerOctober
      30, 2009







The
foregoing certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MCLEOD, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE THREE
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      96,480,000
<SECURITIES>                               127,992,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,459,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,899,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,600,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           224,401,000
<PP&E>                                      98,173,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,050,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             452,994,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,433,000
<BONDS>                                      2,573,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       518,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 402,911,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               452,994,000
<SALES>                                     81,323,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            81,323,000
<CGS>                                       52,624,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               52,624,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            55,997,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               912,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             665,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (22,346,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (22,346,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (22,346,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.52)


</TABLE>
# C_2008022EN.01004301.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/43

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — Portela & Companhia v OHIM — Torrens Cuadrado and Gilbert Sanz (Bial)

(Case T-10/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark Bial - Earlier national word mark BIAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Proof of existence of the earlier mark - Coexistence of earlier marks - Plea amending subject matter of the proceedings - Evidence presented for the first time before the Court of First Instance - Costs incurred before the Opposition Division)

(2008/C 22/79)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portela & Companhia, SA (S. Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: J. Conceição Pimenta, Lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz (Gava, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) concerning opposition proceedings between (a) Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz and (b) Portela & Companhia, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) in so far as it orders the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 600 towards the costs incurred by Mr Torrens Cuadrado and Mr Gilbert Sanz for the opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) in so far as it orders the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 600 towards the costs incurred by Mr Torrens Cuadrado and Mr Gilbert Sanz for the opposition proceedings.

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application.

| 3. | Orders Portela & Companhia, SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half the costs incurred by OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Portela & Companhia, SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half the costs incurred by OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---