alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Varender SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72015.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 4, 2005.

Madan Ahluwalia, Esq., Ahluwalia Law Office, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Shelley R. Goad, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Varender Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. *See Bandari v. INS,*227 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir.2000). We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ relies on minor inconsistencies, such as which day a wooden ruler was used to beat Singh, and the year of an election boycott. *See id.*at 1166. Absent these purported weaknesses in Singh’s testimony, the IJ erred by requiring corroborating evidence. *See Kaur v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 876, 889-90 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that corroborative evidence is not required absent any other weaknesses in petitioner’s testimony).

Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings to determine the merits of Singh’s case. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

*156PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

     As of August 30, 1997, the Company's subsidiaries, all wholly-owned and
incorporated in California (except where noted otherwise) are:

        Grocers Equipment Co.
        Grocers and Merchants Insurance Service, Inc.
    (1) Grocers Capital Company
        Springfield Insurance Company Limited (incorporated in Bermuda)
        Grocers Specialty Company
    (2) Grocers Development Center, Inc.
        Grocers and Merchants Management Company
        Preferred Public Storage Company
        Crown Grocers, Inc.
        Grocers General Merchandise Company
    (3) Springfield Insurance Company
    (4) Banner Marketing, Inc.
    (5) Cerp Acquisition Corp.
        Morga No.12 Acquisition Corp.
        Walnut Creek No.7 Acquisition Corp.
        Lauresm Corporation

--------------------------------
    (1) Outstanding capital shares are owned by Grocers Equipment Co.  (67.63%)
        and the Registrant (32.37%)
    (2) Outstanding capital shares are owned by Grocers Equipment Co.
    (3) Outstanding capital shares are owned by Grocers and Merchants Insurance
        Services, Inc.
    (4) Outstanding capital shares are owned by Grocers Equipment Co.
    (5) Outstanding capital shares are owned by  Grocers Capital Company
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 

Schedule A-6 

This Schedule A-6 dated March 9, 2022, is issued pursuant to the Fourth Amended and Restated Executive
Employment Agreement by and among Company, Parent and Executive, dated March 20, 2019 (the “Agreement”), and shall be incorporated therein and governed by the terms and conditions of such Agreement. This Schedule A-6 is effective April 1, 2022, and is intended to replace any previously issued Schedule A. 
 1.
Position: Chief Executive Officer and President. Executive shall report in such capacity to the Board. 
 2. Base Salary: $585,000 per year.

 3. Bonus: Executive will be entitled to an annual performance-based cash bonus of $245,000, for the achievement of certain financial and
operational targets. These targets, and the bonus dollars tied to such targets, will be determined and communicated to you by the Board on an annual basis. For the 2022 calendar year your bonus will be determined on the following performance
measures: 
  

	 	a.	 MHH Consolidated Revenues; 



 

	 	b.	 MHH Non-GAPP Diluted Earnings Per Share; and 



 

	 	c.	 Offshore Staffing December 2022 Annual Run-rate Revenue.



 The target amount for each measure for the 2022 calendar year is set forth on Appendix 1 to this schedule. Should Company
fail to achieve the target amount for the above performance measures, Executive’s annual performance-based bonus, if any, shall be based upon Company’s evaluation of the percentage of the target amount achieved during the year. Conversely,
should Company’s performance exceed the target amount for the above performance measures, Executive’s annual performance-based bonus may exceed the bonus amount stated above, based upon Company’s evaluation of the percentage of the
over-achievement of such target amount(s). All bonuses will be paid by March 15, 2023, following the completion of Company’s year-end audit. If Executive leaves Company voluntarily, or is terminated
with Cause, before December 31, 2022, Executive will not be eligible for a bonus. If Executive is terminated by Company during 2022 without Cause, Executive’s bonus calculation will be based on Company’s annual results (calculated as
though Executive were still an employee) and a prorated bonus will be paid considering the days in 2022 in which Executive was employed by Company divided by 365. 

4. Benefits: Executive is eligible for standard company benefits in the same manner as other executives of Company. 

5. Expenses: Company will reimburse all properly documented expenses reasonably related to Executive’s performance of Executive’s duties
hereunder. 
  

									
	BY:	  	 /s/ John J. Cronin, Jr.    3/9/22
	  	                    	  	BY:	  	 /s/ Vivek Gupta     3/9/22

		  	Company / Date	  		  		  	Executive / Date
* District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by

designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 16, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20881

 

JOUSSEF MEKDESSI SALOMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-00-CV-0774)

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

Before WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and FURGESON,*

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

Plaintiff-Appellant Joussef Mekdessi Salomon appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of his claims against Defendant-Appellee

Chase Bank of Texas, N.A. as time barred. We affirm.

The district court applied the 3-year statute of limitations

specified in § 4.111 of the Texas version of the Uniform Commercial

Code (“U.C.C.”) after finding the bank in legal bad faith and thus
ineligible for the 1-year statute of limitations for claims arising

under § 4.401 of the U.C.C. Salomon maintained in the district

court, as he now does on appeal, that his claims are based on the

substantive law of Texas, such as breach of contract, so they are

not time barred until the four-year statute of limitation runs.

Relying on § 1.103 of the U.C.C., Salomon insists that his common

law causes of action are not “displaced” by provisions of the

U.C.C., particularly § 4.401, and that principles of law and equity

continue to supplement the provisions of the U.C.C. as adopted by

Texas. 

Although Salomon is correct, he misses the mark: His claims

against the bank arise directly from banking transactions and the

bank’s misdealings with “items” covered by the applicable

provisions of the U.C.C. Thus, even though his causes of action

are not displaced, for claims like his that arise in the banking

context, the general 4-year statute of limitations is displaced by

the particular 3-year statute of limitations specified in § 4.111,

which expressly applies to claims based on allegations of banks’

breaches of duties and obligations owed to their customers. We

therefore affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing

Salomon’s claims as time barred.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2241]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Revised

    The 519th ACRS meeting scheduled to be held for three days, 
February 10-12, 2005, has been changed to a two-day meeting, February 
10-11, 2005. The agenda for the meeting on Thursday, February 10, 2005 
has been modified as noted below.
    <bullet> The discussion of Waterford Nuclear Plant power uprate, 
previously scheduled between 8:35 and 10:30 a.m., is now scheduled 
between 8:35 and 12 noon.
    <bullet> The item on Technical Basis for Potential Revision of the 
Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) Screening Criteria in the PTS Rule, 
scheduled between 10:45 and 12:30 p.m., has been postponed to a future 
ACRS meeting due to the unavailability of draft NUREG document being 
prepared by the NRC staff.
    <bullet> The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility discussion 
scheduled between 1:30 and 4:30 p.m., is now scheduled between 1 and 4 
p.m.
    All the other items remain the same as previously published in the 
Federal Register on Monday, January 24, 2005 (70 FR 3399).
    For further information, contact Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone 301-
415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., e.d.t.

    Dated: February 1, 2005.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-2241 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# USS Oklahoma Marine Accounted For From World War II (Arthurholtz, M.)

/ Published Oct. 31, 2019
WASHINGTON,
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.                  

###### Legal Services Corporation

# Time and Date: 

The Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation will meet on November 28, 2005 via conference call. The meeting will begin at 12 p.m. (e.s.t.), and continue until conclusion of the Board's agenda.

# Location: 

3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007, 3rd Floor Conference Room.

# Status of Meeting: 

OPEN. Directors will participate by telephone conference in such a manner as to enable interested members of the public to hear and identify all persons participating in the meeting. Members of the public may observe the meeting by joining participating staff at the location indicated above.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Approval of the agenda.

2. Consider and act on Board of Directors' response to the Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the period of October 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005.

3. Consider and act on other business.

4. Public comment.

# Contact Person for Information: 

Patricia Batie, Manager of Board Operations, at (202) 295-1500.

      ( print page 69360)    

# Special Needs: 

Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend the meeting may notify Patricia Batie at (202) 295-1500.

Dated: November 9, 2005.

Victor M. Fortuno,

Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-22659 Filed 11-9-05; 4:29 pm]

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 412

Case below: 2 N.C. App. 194.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 9 October 1968.
See Exhibit 3 of Affirmation of 

Jerry V. Leaphart 

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-21 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 1 of 1
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00268-CR 

 

IN RE MATTHEW LEE FLOWERS, RELATOR 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

September 17, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator 

Matthew Lee Flowers. Through it, he seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable 

Steven Emmert, presiding judge of the 31st District Court, to rule on relator’s “Petition for 

Expunction of [A]rrest.” We deny his petition for the following reasons.

First, the person filing the petition must certify that he reviewed the document and 

concluded that every factual allegation therein is supported by competent evidence 

included in the appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Relator omitted such 

certification from his petition.

Second, in In re Chavez, we held that a trial court cannot be found to have abused 

its discretion for purposes of mandamus until the complainant establishes that it 1) had a 
2

legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, 2) was asked to perform the act, and 3) 

failed or refused to do so. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, 

orig. proceeding). The need to consider and rule upon a motion is not a discretionary act. 

Id. Rather, when the motion is properly filed and the court is aware of it, the act of 

considering and resolving it is ministerial. Id.

However, the trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform. Id.

Whether such a period lapsed without action depends upon the circumstances of each 

case. Id. Moreover, no bright line demarcates the boundaries of a reasonable period.

Id. Its borders depend upon a myriad of criteria, not the least of which is the trial court’s 

actual knowledge of the motion or petition, its overt refusal to act on same, the state of 

the court’s docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which 

must be addressed first. Id. at 228–29. So too must the trial court’s inherent power to 

control its docket be factored into the mix. Id. at 229. Relator presented no supporting 

record illustrating that the trial court knew of his petition and failed to act upon it in a 

reasonable time. This failure likewise precludes us from issuing a writ of mandamus.

To reiterate, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. The Clerk of this Court is 

directed to serve the Honorable Steven Emmert with a copy of this order and the petition 

for writ of mandamus in a manner affording Judge Emmert actual notice of same.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Do not publish.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Earle M. Jorgensen Company (“EMJ”) forthe period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Maurice S. Nelson, Jr., asChief Executive Officer of EMJ, and I, William S. Johnson, as Chief FinancialOfficer of EMJ, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Information contained inthis Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of EMJ as of and for the periods covered in thisReport.

 

Date:  August 1, 2003

 

 
| /s/ Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.                                                             |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.  President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer |

 

 
| **/s/ William S. Johnson**                                                |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| William S. Johnson  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

 

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or another documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Earle M. Jorgensen Company and will beretained by Earle M. Jorgensen Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its Staff upon request. The foregoing certification is accompanying the Form 10-Q solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Sections 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code and is notbeing filed as a part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

 

1

----
#### The Meritas Realty Company, Respondent, *v.*Edson J. Farley, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

*Meritas Realty Co.*v. *Farley,*166 App. Div. 420, affirmed.

(Argued October 24, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment entered June 4,1915, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court *672in the second judicial department reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff. The action was brought to foreclose a bond and mortgage made by the defendant to plaintiff to secure the payment of a part of the purchase price of seven lots of land situate at Westbury in the county of Nassau. The answer set up that the bond and mortgage was procured by the fraud and misrepresentations of plaintiff and contained a counterclaim for money paid by defendant to plaintiff upon the purchase of the mortgaged premises with interest. The action was tried without a jury, and judgment was entered in favor of defendant upon all the issues canceling the bond and mortgage as fraudulent and void and awarding judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff upon the counterclaim. The Appellate Division reversed all the findings of the trial court in respect to the alleged fraud, misrepresentation and counterclaim, and made the usual findings for the foreclosure of the bond and mortgage and' sale of the premises in question.

*Edson A. Hayward*for appellant.

*Henry W. Benton*and *Franklin A. Rowe*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and McLaughlin, JJ. Absent: Crane, J. _
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40679 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ARTURO RICO

- ESPINOZA, also known as Jose Arturo Rico

- Espinoza, also known as Rico J. Arturo, also known as Arturo E. Rico, also known as Abel Espinoza Rico, also known as Arturo Espinoza Rico, also known as Rico Jose Arturo, also known as Jose Arturo Rico, also known as Constancio Sorcio Romero, also kn own as Constancio Sorsia Aromero, also known as Arturo Rico Espinoza , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:19

- CR

- 221

- 1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo Rico

Espinoza 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 ,

* 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 June 9, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40679 Document: 00515445694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2020No. 19

- 40679

2 632 F. 3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rico

- Espinoza h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellat e review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40679 Document: 00515445694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2020
#### STATE v. GRADY

No. 150 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 421.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 June 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 17 June 1976.
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 20 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 20 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 20 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 20 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 20 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 20 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 20 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 7 of 7
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"). I, Abbas Salih, Chief Financial Officer of the company,
certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 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 Company.

|Date: | August
      16, 2010 |  | /s/
      Abbas Salih     
|----- | --------------------- |  | --------------------------
|      |                       |  | Abbas Salih, CFO, Director

---