alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 1 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 2 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 3 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 4 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 5 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 6 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 7 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 8 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 9 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 10 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 11 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 12 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 13 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 14 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03417-RO-DCF   Document 50    Filed 07/01/13   Page 15 of 15
#### STATE v. SHANKLIN

No. 130 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 712.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 February 1973.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Todd Sloan, ExecutiveVice President of Corporate Development and Chief Financial Officer ofNetRatings, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance withRule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certificationis attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C.78m); and

 

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

 

Dated: March 16,2005

 

 
|   | /s/ Todd Sloan                             |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Todd Sloan                                 |   |
|   | *Executive  Vice President of Corporate*   |   |
|   | *Development  and Chief Financial Officer* |   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NetRatingsand will be retained by NetRatings and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Case 1:06-cv-15088-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### Jose Guillermo VARGAS MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74224.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Jose Guillermo Vargas Mendoza, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

*884CAC—District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James E. Grimes, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, 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).

**

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

MEMORANDUM***

Jose Guillermo Vargas Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have partial jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Vargas Mendoza failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). We therefore dismiss the petition to the extent it challenges the IJ’s finding that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he failed to establish the requisite hardship.

We review the decision to deny a continuance for abuse of discretion, *Nákamoto v. Ashcroft,*363 F.3d 874, 883 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2004), and review due process challenges de novo, *Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft,*345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.2003). The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance based on the filing of Vargas Mendoza’s 1-140 application. Additionally, Vargas Mendoza’s due process contentions fail because the record does not establish that the IJ prevented him from reasonably presenting his case or denied Vargas Mendoza a fair hearing before an impartial adjudicator. *Cf. Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971-72 (9th Cir.2000) (concluding that the petitioner was prejudiced because the IJ did not allow the petitioner to testify).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 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.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 14, 2015

No. 04-15-00296-CV

IN RE Stacey SCOTT

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On May 13, 2015, relator Stacey Scott filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion 

for emergency stay pending a ruling on the mandamus petition. The court has considered the 

petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay are DENIED. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on May 14, 2015.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CV-0227, styled Patrick Denn, Attorney in Fact for Juanita Denn v. 

Stacey Jo Scott and All Occupants, pending in the County Court at Law, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable 

Robin V. Dwyer presiding.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-91737,333-34552, 333-49842, 333-52012, 333-65192, 333-82864, 333-113544, 333-120976 and 333-123230; and Form S-3 No. 333-55744) of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. of our reports dated March 26, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand schedule of Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Blue Coat Systems, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Blue Coat Systems,Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2006. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 26, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LISA-ATHENA S. ABU HANTASH, in her individual capacity and as mother and natural guardian of JORDAN-ANNETTEE JAZZMIN RICHARDSON, a minor, and JORDAN RICHARDSON, INC., a Virginia Corporation,  

                        Plaintiffs,   

-against-   V MODEL MANAGEMENT NEW YORK, INC. and VNY MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC,    

                        Defendants.  

 Docket No.:  07 Civ. 3363      

 RULE 7.1 STATEMENT 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 [formerly 

Local General Rule 1.9] and to enable District Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Court to 

evaluate possible disqualifications or recusal, the undersigned counsel for Jordan Richardson, 

Inc. certifies that there are no parent corporations of Jordan Richardson, Inc. and/or any publicly 

held corporations that own 10% or more of stock in Jordan Richardson, Inc. 

 Dated: New York, New York  May 4, 2007         NISSENBAUM LAW GROUP, LLC        Attorneys for Plaintiffs                  /S/ GAVIN I. HANDWERKER          By: Gavin I. Handwerker (GIH 6191)        140 Broadway, 46th Floor        New York, New York l0007        (212) 871-5711  

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 2      Filed 04/27/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### ELLIOTT v. POTTS

No. 174 P.C.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 743.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979.
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700352

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

JARED D. EVERETTS

Aviation Ordnanceman Airman (E-3), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Northwest, 

Silverdale, WA

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Commander Justin L.

Hawks, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Major James S. Kresge, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 12 April 2018

_________________________

Before MARKS, WOODARD, and STEPHENS, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
stolztermination.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    July 24,
2009

    


    


    


    Mr.
Robert G. Crockett

    CEO

    Ecology
Coatings, Inc.

    2701
Cambridge Court, Suite 100

    Auburn
Hills, MI 48326

    


    Dear
Bob:

    


    This
letter agreement outlines the changes that we agreed to in discussion with Jim
Juliano today.

    


    Duties:  I
will continue to perform all of the duties of the Chief Financial and Accounting
Officer of Ecololgy.

    


    Attendance:  My
attendance at Ecology Coating’s Auburn Hills office will not, in any case, be
less than is required to timely discharge my duties. Additionally, I’ll provide
my office schedule a week in advance so that you, Jim and Dan will be able to
schedule accordingly, should the need arise.

    


    Termination of Employment
Contract:  Our Employment Agreement, dated February 1, 2008,
will be terminated immediately.

    


    Salary:  My
current monthly salary of $5,833.33 is to continue through August 31,
2009.  As of September 1, 2009, my salary will decrease to $3,500 per
month.

    


    Medical
Plan:  I will continue to be covered by the Company’s medical
insurance through the end of August.  As of September 1, 2009, I will
receive $1,000 on the first business day of the month as reimbursement for
medical insurance. Such reimbursement will continue to be paid on the first day
of each month thereafter that this agreement is effective. If my withdrawal from
the Ecology Coatings, Inc. group medical insurance plan will result in a
material increase in the rate for those remaining in the group, I will continue
to participate in it. Should Ecology Coatings, Inc. not fulfill its obligations
under this plan, my employment status for insurance purposes will become the
obligation of Omega Development for 30 days, during which time Omega will pay
all applicable premiums.

    


    Medical
Reimbursement:  I will be paid the $1,956.46 that the company
owes me for 2008 medical insurance deductibles when the Company receives its
next investment tranche.

    


    Options:  I
will receive 40,000 options to purchase shares of Ecology’s common stock at a
strike price of $1/share, subject to board approval which will be granted prior
to any announcements of deals, etc. The options will vest in increments of
10,000 on September 1, 2009, October 15, 2009, December 1, 2009, and January 15,
2010.  I’ll retain all other options subject to their current pricing
and vesting provisions.

    


    Termination:  This
agreement will continue through September 30, 2009. At that point, it is
cancelable by either party upon thirty days written notice. During that 30 days,
I’ll continue to receive the salary and medical reimbursement covered
above.

    


    


    /s/ Kevin P.
Stolz                                                                                                Ecology
Coatings, Inc.

    Kevin
P. Stolz

    


    By:  /s/ Robert G.
Crockett

    Robert G. Crockett

    


    Its:  CEO
#### STATE v. STARNES

No. 83 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 357.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 December 1972.
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 15-12 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 15-12 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 15-12 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03540-LTS-JCF Document 9 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1


# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued June 3, 2009 Decided June 4, 2009



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Chief Judge

I LANA D IAMOND R OVNER , Circuit Judge

D IANE S. S YKES , Circuit Judge

No. 08

- 4048

R AMONA J OLIVETTE , Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v

. M ICHAEL A STRUE , Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 07

- cv

- 699

- bbc Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Jud ge

.

Order
Ramona Jolivette’s application for Social Security disability benefits was denied a dministratively, and again by an administrative law judge after a hearing. The district court concluded that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial eviden ce. 2008 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 79864 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2008).
We affirm for substantially the reasons given by the district judge. Jolivette’s princ ipal appellate argument

— that the ALJ erred by failing to discuss Listing 1.04A

— does not tackle the district co urt’s observation that the ALJ discussed all elements of the Listing. It is not necessary to cite a regulation by number; the agency’s obligation is to apply the law to the facts, and this ALJ did so by covering each ingredient of Listing 1.04A.
Jolivette also contends that the ALJ erred by failing to “qualify” the non

- attorney representative who accompanied Jolivette to the hearing. We may assume that this is so; the representative was not a well

- informed or effective advocate for Jolivette’s pos ition. Sti ll, as the district court observed, Jolivette has not established any prejudice from this omission. The ALJ developed the record independently rather than stopping with the information that Jolivette’s representative offered. Jolivette does not contend tha t, had the ALJ ejected the representative from the hearing, she would have asked for a continuance in order to hire a lawyer or a better lay representative. Nor does Jol i vetteN o. 08

- 4048 Page 2

explain what a different representative could have done on her behalf that the A LJ did not do at the actual hearing. Jolivette’s brief says that a better representative would have alerted the ALJ to Listing 1.04A and ensured that the ALJ covered its requir ements; since the ALJ did cover this subject, another hearing would be pointless . The same can be said in response to Jolivette’s assertion that a better representative would have called the ALJ’s attention to her psychologist’s conclusions.
The district court’s lengthy opinion covers all of Jolivette’s other arguments.

A FFIRMED
#### BUTLER v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL

No. 328 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 734.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000055373
<NAME> KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      738,459
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     51,805
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         291,244
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         8,480
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 101,216
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,191,204
<COMMON>                                        50,450
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      158,750
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             62,431
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 271,631
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           200,921
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              43,634
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  140,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     11,489
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 3,229
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 520,300
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,191,204
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      194,963
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             6,809
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     163,141
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     169,950
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         25,013
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 625
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  25,638
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        15,137
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,501
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   10,501
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        15,180
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        4,752
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          50,417
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>
All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>


</TABLE>
* 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 March 30, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60333 Summary Calendar

IBAN PARAMERO-TORRES Petitioner

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 711 139

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Iban Paramero-Torres has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order, denying him withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the BIA did not adopt the immigration judge’s decision, but issued its own decision, this court reviews the decision of the BIA. See Girma v. INS , 283 F.3d 664, 666 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Paramero’s arguments that the immigration judge erred in its adverse credibility determinationNo. 04-60333 -2- and erred in failing to address his entitlement to relief under the CAT are not subject to review by this court. Id. Paramero argues that he was eligible for withholding of removal because he demonstrated that he was persecuted and fears persecution by guerillas in Columbia on account of his religious beliefs and practices. To be eligible for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return. Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). The BIA’s decision that Paramero had failed to demonstrate clear probability of persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Zamora-Morel v. INS , 905 F.2d 833, 838 (5th Cir. 1990). The petition for review is DENIED.
#### Edwin T. Cornell, Respondent, *v.*Lillian R. Child et al., Respondents, and Charles Purdy et al., Appellants.

*Cornell v. Child,*170 App. Div. 240, affirmed.

(Argued October 8, 1918;

decided October 29, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 17, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendants, respondents, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The action was for partition of real property of which one Ella L. Cornell died seized. The rights of the descendants of three sisters, Sarah, Elizabeth and Ann Theall, are /involved. William Cornell first married Sarah, by whom he had two sons, William T. Cornell (who in 1907 deceased, leaving as only issue Lillian R. Child and Florence C. Kent) and Edwin T. Cornell, the plaintiff herein. After Sarah’s death, William Cornell married as his second wife Elizabeth Theall, by whom he had three children, Fred L. Cornell, Frank S. Cornell and a daughter, Ella L. Cornell. Elizabeth Cornell was seized of the lands here in question. She died in 1892, intestate, so that the lands subject of this suit for partition descended to her three children aforesaid, each having a third interest, as tenant in common. These children have now all died, Ella’s interest became increased by devise and descent from her brothers. .By -lapse of certain provisions of the will of Ella Cornell, a case of partial intestacy has arisen as to one-half of her residuary estate. The respondents claim that this inheritance passed to her brother of the half blood, plaintiff Edwin T. Cornell, with her nieces of the half blood, Lillian R. Child and Florence C. Kent, daughters of the deceased half brother William T. Cornell. The descendants of Ann Theall, by her marriage with Thomas Purdy, also claim an equal share in the property as to which Ella L. Cornell died intestate, The qourt *635at Special Term found and determined that the plaintiff, Edwin T. Cornell, and the defendants Lillian R. Child and Florence C. Kent inherit the property which descended to Ella Cornell directly from her ancestor Elizabeth Cornell, as to which Ella Cornell died intestate, through their kinship of the half blood, under section 90 of the Decedent Estate Law.

*Eben H. P. Squire*for appellants.

*Burton C. Meighan*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.