alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-4 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-4 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-4 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-4 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 4
**EXHIBIT      8.1 **

**LIST      OF EDAP TMS S.A. SUBSIDIARIES**

**(as      of March 31, 2006)**

| **Name                of Subsidiary**        |   |  **Juridiction                of Incorporation** |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                         |   |                                                  |   |
| Techomed                Medical Systems S.A. |   |                                                  | France |
| EDAP                S.A.                     |   |                                                  | France |
| EDAP                Technomed S.r.l.         |   |                                                  | Italy |
| EDAP                Technomed, Inc.          |   |                                                  | United                States |
| EDAP                Technomed Co. Ltd.       |   |                                                  | Japan |
| EDAP                Technomed Sdn Bhd        |   |                                                  | Malaysia |
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Theodore GAINES, Appellant. Theodore GAINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66402.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 30, 1996.

David L. Simpson, Public Defender, Columbia, John M. Schilmoeller, Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and SIMON and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*547
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Theodore Gaines, appeals the judgment of conviction for sodomy in violation of RSMo § 566.060 (Cum.Supp.1992) entered by the Circuit Court of Ralls County after a jury trial, and appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. We further find the judgment denying the Rule 29.15 motion is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeurogesX, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeurogesX, Inc.

Dated: November 14, 2007



By:

/s/ Anthony A. DiTonnoAnthony A. DiTonnoPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)By:

/s/ Stephen F. GhiglieriStephen F. Ghiglieri Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN DE DIOS MOLINA-PENA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 12-73642 

Agency No. A092-300-354 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted August 31, 2017

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District Judge.

Juan Molina-Pena petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his 

motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to 

reopen for abuse of discretion, and questions of law and constitutional issues de 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

novo. Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). We defer 

to the decision of the BIA unless it acted in a manner that was “arbitrary, irrational, 

or contrary to law.” Caruncho v. INS, 68 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir. 1995). For the 

reasons announced below, we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review,

and remand to the BIA for clarification.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Molina-Pena’s motion to 

reopen as untimely when he did not file his motion until more than a decade after 

the deportation order became final and failed to show that he acted with the due 

diligence required to warrant equitable tolling. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 

889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Because Molina-Pena did not meet the timing requirements and is not 

entitled to equitable tolling, his only remaining avenue for relief was to ask the 

BIA to reopen his proceedings sua sponte. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 585 

(9th Cir. 2016). The BIA has found that its power to reopen sua sponte is limited 

to “exceptional circumstances,” In Re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 984 (BIA 1997), 

and we ordinarily lack jurisdiction to review such a determination. See Bonilla, 

840 F.3d at 586-88.

Here, it is unclear whether the BIA applied the “exceptional circumstances” 

standard to Molina-Pena’s claims. While the BIA briefly referenced the standard 

in its order, it clearly applied the “gross miscarriage of justice” standard as well. 
3

Therefore, we remand to the BIA to clarify the legal standard applied and to 

enunciate the reasons for the denial of sua sponte reopening. As is permitted under 

the limited scope of review defined in Bonilla, we remand for the “limited 

purpose” of requiring the agency to state the reasoning behind its decision, so that 

we may review for legal or constitutional error. 840 F.3d at 588.

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and 

REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13132]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than June 7, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
    1. Mary G. Clark Revocable Trust and Mary Gene Clark, as Trustee, 
both of Windom, Minnesota; to acquire a total of 25.51 percent of the 
voting shares of Windom State Investment Company, Windom, Minnesota, 
and thereby indirectly acquire Southwest State Bank, Windom, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 20, 1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-13132 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### The May Department Stores Co. *v.*McBride.

(No. 22975

Decided October 14, 1931.)

*Messrs. McKeehan, Merrick, Arter é Stewart, Mr. A. M. Van Duzer*and *Mr. Thomas V. Koykka,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Burgert & Stearns*and *Messrs. Dunlap, Stephens $ Stephens,*for defendant in error.

By the Court

(Kinkade, J.).

Marion McBride sued the May Department Stores Company to recover damages for personal injuries received by her while riding on a moving stairway, known as an escalator, owned and operated by the store company in its store. McBride alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of the store company. Verdict and judgment in favor of the store company were rendered in the trial court. The Court of Appeals, on error, reversed and remanded for error of the trial court in charging the jury that ordinary care was the full measure of the store company’s obligation to McBride.

This court holds, on the facts that are not in dispute, that the store company was a common carrier of persons, and that its duty to such persons while so carrying them was to exercise the highest degree of care of which the situation was reasonably susceptible.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Robinson, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15504]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-271-000]


Gas Research Institute; Notice of Refund Report

June 13, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 7, 1996, the Gas Research Institute (GRI) 
filed a report summarizing its 1995 Tier 1 refunds made to its pipeline 
members.
    GRI states that the refunds, totaling $17,091,213 to twenty-eight 
pipelines, were made in accordance with the Commission's October 13, 
1995, directive contained in Opinion No. 402 (73 FERC para.61,073).
    GRI states that it has served copies of the filing to each person 
included on the Secretary's service list.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before June 20, 1996. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to this proceeding, 
must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with 
the Commission and are available for public inspection in the public 
Reference Room.

Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15504 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit
      10.15**




**First
      Amendment**


**to
      the**





**PMA
      Capital Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
      Directors**


**(As
      Amended and Restated Effective November 1, 2000)**




WHEREAS,
      PMA Capital Corporation (the “Plan Administrator”) maintains the PMA Capital
      Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Plan”)
      for the benefit of its non-employee directors; and




WHEREAS,
      the Plan Administrator now wishes to amend the Plan to permit, in accordance
      with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, participants to receive an
      immediate distribution of benefits during 2005 without penalty; and




WHEREAS,
      under Section 5.5 of the Plan, the Plan Administrator has reserved the right
      to
      amend the Plan, subject to certain limitations;




NOW,
      THEREFORE, effective as provided herein, the Plan Administrator hereby amends
      the Plan as follows:




**I.**  **Section
      4.3(c) of the Plan is amended in its entirety, effective January 1, 2005, to
      read as follows:**




“(c)  A
      Participant who is not entitled to payment of his Deferred Compensation Account
      under any other provision of Article IV may make a written request by December
      15, 2005 to the Board for an accelerated payment of his entire Deferred
      Compensation Account balance. If the Board receives such a request, it shall
      make a final valuation of the Participant’s Deferred Compensation Account and
      pay the balance of such account to the Participant. There shall be no reduction
      in the amounts paid to any Participant who makes the election set forth in
      this
      Section 4.3(c). This Section 4.3(c) is intended to comply with the requirements
      of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Q&A-20
      of IRS Notice 2005-1.”




**II.**  **The
      first sentence of Section 5.5 of the Plan is amended in its entirety, to read
      as
      follows:**




“The
      Plan
      may be amended, restated, modified or terminated by the Board of Directors
      or
      the Committee, except that Section 3.3(d) of the Plan may not be amended or
      modified following a Change of Control without the consent of the
      Participant.”












IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, PMA Capital Corporation has caused this First Amendment to
      be
      duly executed, this 21 st day of
      November, 2005.









Attest:
            
            **PMA
                Capital Corporation**/s/
                Robert L. Pratter
            
            /s/
                William E. HitselbergerRobert
                L. Pratter, Secretary
            
            William
                E. Hitselberger,Executive
                Vice President andChief
                Financial Officer








2
**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 Derycz Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
        McKilligan, 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) 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.
  /s/ Richard
        McKilligan
 
 Richard
        McKilligan  Chief
        Financial Officer  Date:
        May
        15, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31145-31146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15572]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[AZ-054-06-1990-00; AZA 25589]


Notice of Realty Action; Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) 
Act Classification; Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The following public lands were examined and found suitable 
for classification and lease under the R&PP Act of June 14, 1926, as 
amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq. (see 56 FR 43034, August 30, 1991). The 
lands have now been found suitable for conveyance under the same act:

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona

T. 19 N., R. 22 W.,
    Sec. 2, S\1/2\S\1/2\NE\1/4\, N\1/2\N\1/2\SE\1/4\.

    The area described contains 80 acres.

    The land is not needed for Federal purposes. Conveyance is 
consistent with current BLM land use planning and would be in the 
public interest.
    The patent, when issued, will reserve ditches and canals and all 
minerals to the United States and be subject to the terms, conditions 
and reservations contained in the R&PP Act, all applicable regulations 
of the Secretary of the Interior, and all existing third-party rights.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Easley, Land Law Examiner, 
Havasu Resource Area, 3189 Sweetwater Avenue, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 
86406, Phone: (520) 855-8017.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The land will remain segregated from all 
other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the 
general mining laws, except for conveyance under the R&PP Act and 
leasing under the mineral leasing laws.
    In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will 
become effective 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register.


[[Page 31146]]


    Dated: June 12, 1996.
Mary Jo Yoas,
Chief, Lands and Minerals Adjudication Section.
[FR Doc. 96-15572 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Darrin Lee GREEN, Appellant.

No. 63270.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Feb. 1, 1994.

Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

*ORDER*

Appellant, Darrin Lee Green, appeals from a jury conviction of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, RSMo § 195.211 (Cum.Supp.1990), entered in the Circuit Court of Franklin County for which appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of five and eight years’ imprisonment. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the circuit court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cornelius Isaac Hunter, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

US Corrections Transport, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00899-PHX-JAT (JFM)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) from the 

Magistrate Judge recommending the Defendant Simmons be dismissed for failure to timely 

serve. (Doc. 37). Neither party has file objections to the R&R. 

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that 

de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 

otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 

1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 

[Magistrate Judge=s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 

not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. 

' 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report 

and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 

 Because neither party objected, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 37) is accepted; 

Defendant Simmons is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to timely serve. Because 

another Defendant remains in this case, the Clerk of the Court shall not enter judgment at 

this time. 

 Dated this 14th day of February, 2019.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 13a-14(a)

|I, Christopher P. Johns, certify that:
|--------------------------------------
|                                      
|1.                                    
|                                      
|2.                                    
|                                      
|3.                                    
|                                      
|4.                                    
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|5.                                    
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      

|                        
|------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2007    
|                        
|                        
|/s/ Christopher P. Johns
|                        
|Christopher P. Johns    
|Chairman and President  
|PG&E Funding LLC        



Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 13a-14(a)

|I, Nicholas Bijur, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|1.                              
|                                
|2.                              
|                                
|3.                              
|                                
|4.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|5.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                



|Date:  March 26, 2007
|---------------------
|                     
|                     
|/s/ Nicholas Bijur   
|                     
|Nicholas Bijur       
|Treasurer            
|PG&E Funding LLC
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00067-CV

LAKESHORE GRANBURY 

HOLDINGS, LLC

APPELLANT

V.

HOOD COUNTY APPRAISAL 

DISTRICT

APPELLEE 

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

FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. C2016151

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” It is the 

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which 

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, KERR, and PITTMAN, JJ. 

DELIVERED: June 28, 2018

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.