alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 20, 2018

Gretchen Engel, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorneys at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Irving Joyner, Attorneys at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Jin Hee Lee, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorneys at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of July 2018 by Former State and Federal Prosecutors to admit Paul F. Khoury Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of July 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
Exhibit 7  Daimler AG and its Consolidated Subsidiaries Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges  (in
millions of , except ratios)  U.S. GAAP
  
  IFRS (3)Year Ended December 31,
  
  Year Ended December 31,2002
  
  2003
  
  2004
  
  2005
  
  2006
  
  2005
  
  2006
  
  2007
  
  2008EARNINGSIncome/(loss) from continuing operations before income taxes,
  minority interests, and cumulative effects of changes in accounting
  principles
  
  5,925
  
  596
  
  3,535
  
  3,376
  (2)
  4,021
  (2)
  2,426
  
  4,902
  
  9,181
  
  2,795Add:Fixed charges
  
  4,102
  
  3,383
  
  3,199
  
  4,312
  
  4,649
  
  3,457
  
  3,714
  
  4,147
  
  4,565Amortization of previously capitalized interest
  
  134
  
  119
  
  107
  
  104
  
  97
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Dividends received from equity investees
  
  133
  
  80
  
  107
  
  122
  
  159
  
  122
  
  159
  
  9
  
  9Deduct:Capitalized interest
  
  (147
  )
  (100
  )
  (70
  )
  (73
  )
  (73
  )
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Income)/loss from equity investees
  
  134
  
  538
  
  937
  
  (103
  )
  (318
  )
  (372
  )
  148
  
  399
  
  1,128Earnings available for fixed charges
  
  10,281
  
  4,616
  
  7,815
  
  7,738
  
  8,535
  
  5,633
  
  8,923
  
  13,736
  
  8,497FIXED CHARGESInterest expense
  
  3,709
  
  3,034
  
  2,828
  
  3,924
  
  4,256
  
  3,264
  
  3,526
  
  3,943
  
  4,377Capitalized interest
  
  147
  
  100
  
  70
  
  73
  
  73
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Interest portion of rent expense (1)
  
  246
  
  249
  
  301
  
  315
  
  320
  
  193
  
  188
  
  204
  
  188Total fixed charges
  
  4,102
  
  3,383
  
  3,199
  
  4,312
  
  4,649
  
  3,457
  
  3,714
  
  4,147
  
  4,565RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
  
  2.51
  
  1.36
  
  2.44
  
  1.79
  
  1.84
  
  1.63
  
  2.40
  
  3.31
  
  1.86  
 (1)One third of all rental expenses is
deemed to be interest. (2)Income from continuing operations before income taxes,
minority interests, and cumulative effects of changes in accounting principles
under US-GAAP for the years 2005 and 2006 was retroactively adjusted in
connection with the first time adoption of IFRS. The adjustements did not
materially affect the results of the years 2005 or 2006. (3)The IFRS based numbers for the years ended December 31,
2007, 2006 and 2005 have been adjusted to reflect the presentation of the
Chrysler activities as discontinued operations.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA DEL ROSA RUIZ-CASTANEDA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71065 

Agency No. A200-877-792 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 30, 2021**

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Maria Del Rosa Ruiz-Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from 

an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 5 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-71065 

of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and 

cancellation of removal.

1

 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions 

of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the 

extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes 

and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ruiz-Castaneda

failed to establish she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be 

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang 

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Ruiz-Castaneda’s claim 

for withholding of removal fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Ruiz-Castaneda failed to show it is more likely than not she will be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

1 Ruiz-Castaneda does not challenge the agency’s denial of her asylum 

application as time-barred or the denial of her application for cancellation of 

removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship. 
3 15-71065 

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating 

standard for CAT protection). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2011113EN.01001202.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission

(Case T-401/07) (1)

1

(ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Action for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Inadmissibility - Arbitration clause)

2011/C 113/23

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz, F. Ponce de Leão Paulouro and C. Farinhas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and L. Flynn, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the global grant for local development in Portugal by Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995, and a claim for an order against the Commission to pay the final balance of the financial assistance under Article 238 EC.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Portugal to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Portugal to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008

1

---
#### Louis COLEMAN, Individually and as Father of Louis Frank Coleman v. Dr. Richard DENO, Dr. Ivan Sherman and Joellen Smith Hospital.

No. 2003-C-0167.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Deno, Richard Dr. et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 90-14684; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 99-CA-2998.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Pete ADAMS.

No. 2003-KH-0938.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Pete Adams, applying for Motion to Enforce this Court’s Order dated April 21, 2003; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Division “H”, No. 429-661.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.
**EXHIBIT
        32**
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS
        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 report of Ridgewood Energy K Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) on Form
        10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
        hereby certifies, 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 their knowledge :
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Fund.
 
 Dated:
              May
                  9, 2007
              
              
              
              RIDGEWOOD
                  ENERGY K FUND, LLCBy:
              /s/
              
              ROBERT
                  E. SWANSONName:
              
              Robert
                  E. SwansonTitle:
              
              President
                  and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                  Executive Officer)Dated:
              May
                  9, 2007By:
              /s/
              
              KATHLEEN
                  P. MCSHERRYName:
              
              Kathleen
                  P. McSherryTitle:
              
              Senior
                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                  Financial and Accounting Officer)
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
        acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
        form
        within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided
        to
        Ridgewood Energy K Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy K Fund,
        LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon
        request.
NASH HOSPITALS, INC. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.

No. 340P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Scott Lewis, Attorney at Law, Pamela Renee Lawrence, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

J. Christopher Dunn, Attorney at Law, for Nash Hospitals, Inc.

Pamela L. Carter, Attorney at Law.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of October 2017 by Defendant 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 1st of March 2018."
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




**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 Annual Report of Visual Management Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jason Gonzalez, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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:November
                14, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Jason GonzalezJason
                GonzalezChief
                Executive Officer
#### Brian K. MORROW, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 61176.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 3, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 29, 2003.

*378-396Susan Lynn Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, appellant. .

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Charnette D. Douglass, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, P.J., JAMES M. SMART, JR., and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*Order*

PER CURIAM.

Brian K. Morrow appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconvietion relief. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10349

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20693-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DAVIER DIAZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 10, 2017)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-10349 Date Filed: 04/10/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Davier Diaz appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 80 months following 

his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

Diaz contends that the district court erred in calculating his sentencing range when

it relied on the residual clause of section 4B1.2(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines to 

conclude that his prior convictions in Florida of burglary of an unoccupied 

dwelling qualified as crimes of violence. He argues that the residual clause of 

section 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague. We affirm. 

The district court committed no error. Diaz’s argument is foreclosed by the 

recent decision of the Supreme Court in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 

890 (2017), and our earlier decision in United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 

1194‒95 (11th Cir. 2015). In Beckles, the Supreme Court affirmed this Court and

ruled, as we had in Matchett, that the residual clause of section 4B1.2(a)(2) was not 

unconstitutionally vague because the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to 

challenges for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 890, 895. In Matchett, we also determined that a prior 

conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling under Florida law, Fla. Stat. 

§ 810.02(1)(b), (3)(b), was a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of 

section 4B1.2(a)(2). 802 F.3d at 1196‒97. We affirm Diaz’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10349 Date Filed: 04/10/2017 Page: 2 of 2
KENNETH CRISSUP

PLAINTIFF

V.

WILLIAM STEPHENS,ET AL

Defendants

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

TWELFTH DISTRICT

§

§

§ CAUSE NO.

INMATE DECLARATION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

Pursuant to §14.004 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,

Appellant,Kenneth Crissup,TDCJ # 1258732,currently residing as an inmate

at the Michaels Unit in Anderson County,hereby declares as follows:

1.

Kenneth Crissup V. Pamela Kirkpatrick,L. Garrett,William Motal,

Todd Foxworth,D. Dewberry,"Unknown Officer",Brad Thaler,Cause No.

Pending.Mailed to the 87th District Court on October 22,2012.Nature

of suit property damage and loss,personal injury and civil rights

violations.

12th Court of Appeais District

Kenneth Crissup V. William Stephens,ET AL.Filed in the 200th

District Court Cause No- D-l-GN-13-001702 on November 12,2012.

This cause was misfiled due to a clerks error in the 3rd Court of

Appeals under Cause NO. 03-12-00761.Venue was transferred to Anderso

County under Cause NO.349-7261.Plaintiff moved to consolidate the

previously filed cause in the 87th District Court that was never

assigned a file
number.Plaintiff then amended the original complaint that is subject

to this appeal.The complaint claims Due Process violations,civil

rights violations,breach of contract claims and seeks monetary and

injunctive relief.

I,Kenneth crissup,Appellant,TDCJ # 1258732,and being currently

incarcerated in the Michaels Unitof the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice in Anderson County,declare under Penalty of Perjury that

according to my belief the facts stated in the above declaration are

true and correct.

EXECUTED THIS ^Xf\ DAYYOF JANUARY ,2015.

Kenneth Crissup #1258732

2.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4753 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4753

To suspend, during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
of this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency action under the Clean 
 Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain 
 proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2010

Mr. Rahall (for himself, Mr. Mollohan, and Mr. Boucher) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend, during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
of this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency action under the Clean 
 Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain 
 proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stationary Source Regulations Delay 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN EPA ACTION.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
notwithstanding any provision of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.), during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may 
not take any action under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 
with respect to any stationary source permitting requirement or any 
requirement under section 111 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7411) relating to 
carbon dioxide or methane.
    (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
            (1) any action under part A of title II of the Clean Air 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) relating to the vehicle emissions 
        standards contained in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 or 
        Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472;
            (2) any action relating to the preparation of a report or 
        the enforcement of a reporting requirement; or
            (3) any action relating to the provision of technical 
        support at the request of a State.
    (c) Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
action taken by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency before the end of the 2-year period described in subsection (a) 
shall be considered to make carbon dioxide or methane a pollutant 
subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 
for any source other than a new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle 
engine, as described in section 202(a) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)).
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [WO-300-1330-EO] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) originally published this notice on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 [70 FR 51364] and solicited public comments on the report which affirms the existing policy on the criteria used to establish the potash enclave. The BLM gave the public 30 days to comment on these Policy Standards. The public comment period ended on Thursday, September 29, 2005. The BLM received numerous requests to lengthen the comment period. The BLM will re-issue a comment period for 120 days. 

# DATES:

Comments should be submitted to the address below no later than February 3, 2006. 

# ADDRESSES:

Written comments should be addressed to Group Manager, Solid Minerals, 1620 L, Street, NW., Mail Stop 501 LS, Washington, DC 20036. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charlie Beecham, Mining Engineer, 1620 L, St., NW., Mail Stop 501 LS, Washington, DC 20036, telephone (202) 785-6570. 

Thomas Lonnie,

Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection. 

[FR Doc. 05-20087 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P