alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BOANERGES DE JESUS CORNEL,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General
,

Respondent. No. 17

- 73328

Agency No. A075

- 623

- 241

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted February 19, 2019 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Boanerges De Jesus Cornel, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Boa rd of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.

Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

* 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

FEB 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 73328

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cornel’s untimely motion to

reopen, where he failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief to qualify

for an exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi , 597 F.3d at 986 (the BIA can deny a motion to

reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought). We
reject Cornel’s co ntention that the BIA did not properly consider his evidence.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Cornel’s contentions regarding claims for

relief that he did not present to the BIA in his motion to reopen

. S ee Barron v.

Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or

claims in admi nistrative proceedings below)

. We also lack jurisdiction to consider Cornel’s challenges to the BIA’s 2014

order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of asylum
, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention A gainst Torture because

Cornel failed to file a timely petition for review as to that order

. S ee 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the

date of the final order of removal.”) ; see also Singh v. INS , 315 F.3d 1186, 1188

(9th Cir. 2003) (30

- day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).

We do not address Cornel ’s due process contention. See Martinez

- Serrano

v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Ci r. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not3 17

- 73328

supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

On Display, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 

 

DataSage, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts. 

 

E5 Merger Sub., Inc, incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 

 

Vignette Holdings, L.L.C., organized under the laws of Delaware. 

 

Vignette International, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 

 

Vignette Public Sector & Education, Inc. (formerly known as Vignette Federal Corporation), incorporatedunder the laws of Delaware. 

 

Vignette Europe Limited, organized under the lawsof the United Kingdom. 

 

Vignette SARL, organized under the laws of France.

 

Vignette Deutschland GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany. 

 

Vignette Australia Pty Limited, organized under the laws of Australia. 

 

Vignette Hong Kong Limited, organized under the laws of Hong Kong. 

 

Vignette Asia Pte Ltd., organized under the laws of Singapore. 

 

Vignette Iberica S. L., organized under the laws of Spain. 

 

Vignette Italia SRL, organized under the laws of Italy. 

 

Vignette Nordica AB, organized under the laws of Sweden. 

 

Vignette India, PvT Ltd., organized under the laws of India. 

 

Vignette Software New Zealand Limited, organized under the laws of New Zealand. 

 

Vignette Software Schweiz GmbH, organized under the laws of Switzerland. 

 

Vignette de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C. V., organized under the laws of Mexico. 

 

Vignette do Brasil Ltda., organized under the laws of Brazil. 

 

Vignette de Argentina, organized under the laws of Argentina. 

 

Vignette B.V. (formerly known as OnDisplay Benelux B.V.), organized under the laws ofHolland. 

 

Vignette Canada Corporation, organized under the laws of Canada.

 

Epicentric, Inc., incorporated under the laws of California. 

 

Epicentric Solutions, Inc. incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 

 

Epicentric SARL, organized under the laws of France. 

 

Epicentric GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany. 

 

Epicentric Limited, organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. 

 

Epicentric Netherlands B.V., organized under the laws of Holland. 

 

Epicentric (BVI), Inc., incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands.

 

Intraspect Software, Inc. incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 

 

Intraspect France SARL organized under the laws of France.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Dan Hyer, Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-005-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

The Court having reviewed the United States’ Motion to Continue Sentencing, there 

being no objection, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Continue Sentencing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing the Sentencing from December 11, 

2023, to ___________________________________ at ________________________.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1882-1 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 2, 2011 

Order 

 

December 2, 2011 

140147(60)(67) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 140147 

v COA: 274148 

St. Clair CC: 03-000881-FH 

JAMES EUGENE GRISSOM, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, motions by defendant-appellant for extension of the 

time for filing his brief are considered and it appearing the brief was filed November 7, 

2011, the time for filing is extended to that date.
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

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Erik Pineda Jimenez, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-18-00345-PHX-JJT

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant was released on Pretrial Supervision on 3/21/2018. Pretrial Services filed

a Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release alleging that defendant violated the

terms of his release. Defendant was arrested and appears before the Court with counsel.

Counsel for defendant advises the Court that defendant wishes to waive his right to

a hearing on the petition. The Court addressed defendant and advised defendant of his right

to remain silent, to continued representation by counsel, to provide evidence on his behalf,

and the government's obligation to prove that defendant violated at least one condition of

release by clear and convincing evidence. Defendant advised he understood these rights and

confirmed that he wanted to waive his right to a hearing.

The Court deems the waiver a submission and based on the allegations in the petition,

the Court finds that defendant violated at least one condition of his release. Further, that

defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.

///
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

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant's release is revoked and he is

detained pending further order of the Court.

DATED this 27th day of November, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15722]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2866]


Texas; Declaration of Disaster Loan Area

    Howard County and the contiguous counties of Borden, Dawson, 
Glasscock, Martin, Mitchell, Scurry, and Sterling constitute a disaster 
area as a result of damages caused by severe thunderstorms and hail 
that occurred May 10 through 13, 1996. Applications for loans for 
physical damage may be filed until the close of business on August 9, 
1996 and for economic injury until the close of business on March 10, 
1997 at the address listed below:

U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon 
Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Fort Worth, Texas 76155

or other locally announced locations.
    The interest rates are:

For Physical Damage:                                            Percent 
    Homeowners with credit available elsewhere...............      7.625
    Homeowners without credit available elsewhere............      3.875
    Businesses with credit available elsewhere...............      8.000
    Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit              
     available elsewhere.....................................      4.000
    Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit             
     available elsewhere.....................................      7.125
For Economic Injury:                                                    
    Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without              
     credit available elsewhere..............................      4.000
                                                                        

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 286611. 
For economic injury the number is 894600.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 10, 1996.
John T. Spotila,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-15722 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1088 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1088

 To authorize certain construction in coastal high hazard areas using 
 assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                            Assistance Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2009

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize certain construction in coastal high hazard areas using 
 assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                            Assistance Act.

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

SECTION 1. COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``coastal high hazard area'' has the meaning 
        given that term in section 9.4 of title 44, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, or any successor thereto; and
            (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
        and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
    (b) Authorization.--For an activity in a coastal high hazard area 
that is otherwise an eligible use of assistance under section 404, 
section 406, or section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c, 5172, and 5174) as a 
result of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, Rita, Gustav, or Ike, 
notwithstanding 9.11(d)(1) of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, 
and subject to all other requirements under part 9 of title 44, Code of 
Federal Regulations--
            (1) the activity shall be an eligible use of assistance 
        under such section; and
            (2) any new construction or substantial improvements to 
        structures under such an activity involving critical actions 
        shall not be required to elevate to the 500-year floodplain, if 
        it would be impracticable.
    (c) Administrative Procedures.--Notwithstanding chapter 5 of title 
5, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Administrative Procedure 
Act''), the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall not be required to promulgate, modify, or amend any regulation to 
carry out subsection (b).
    (d) Applicability.--This section shall apply to any assistance 
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) relating to a major disaster--
            (1) declared on or after August 28, 2005; and
            (2) relating to Hurricane Katrina, Rita, Gustav, or Ike.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-20517-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

D-6 ENRIQUE FARIAS-VALENCIA,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO COUNT ONE, AND TAKING THE RULE 11

PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on April 21, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge Charles

E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on April 22,

2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty. As of today’s date, no

party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The failure to

file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object

to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 96] is ADOPTED.

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 108 Filed 05/12/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 311
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilt as to count one is ACCEPTED,

and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 91] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 12, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on May 12, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 108 Filed 05/12/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 312
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2836-2837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1447]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the 
Health Sciences; Notice of Meeting of the Fogarty International Center 
Advisory Board

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given 
of the thirty-second meeting of the Fogarty International Center (FIC) 
Advisory Board, February 6, 1996, in the Lawton Chiles International 
House (Building 16) at the National Institutes of Health.
    The meeting will be open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 
In addition to a report by the Director, FIC, the agenda will focus on 
the status of FIC programs and plans.
    In accordance with the provisions of sections 552b(c)(4) and 
552b(c)(6), Title 5, United States Code and section 10(d) of Public Law 
92-463, as amended, the meeting will be closed to the public from 11:00 
a.m. to adjournment for the review of applications for awards under the 
Senior International Fellowship Program and the International Research 
Fellowship Program; and the Fogarty International Research 
Collaboration Awards and HIV, AIDS and Related Illnesses Collaboration 
Awards.
    Paula Cohen, Committee Management Officer, Fogarty International 
Center, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room B2C08, 31 
CENTER DR MSC 2220, Bethesda, MD 20892-2220, telephone: 301-496-1491, 
will provide a summary of the meeting and a roster of the committee 
members upon request.
    Irene Edwards, Executive Secretary, Fogarty International Center 
Advisory Board, Building 31, Room B2C08, telephone: 301-496-1491, will 
provide substantive program information.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other 

[[Page 2837]]
reasonable accommodations, should contact Ms. Cohen at least 2 weeks in 
advance of the meeting.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the above 
meeting due to the partial shutdown of the Federal Government and the 
urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the review funding 
cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.989, Senior 
International Awards Program)

    Dated: January 22, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-1447 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Board of Directors Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.38 
 Domino’s Pizza, Inc. 
 Independent Director Compensation Schedule 
  

					
	 Compensation Type

	 	 	    	 Amount


	 Annual Retainer
	 	 	    	$44,000 per year
	 Board of Directors Meeting Fee
	 	 	    	$2,000 per meeting
	 Committee Meeting Fee
	 	 	    	$1,500 per meeting
	 Audit Chairperson Retainer
	 	 	    	$20,000 per year
	 Compensation Committee Chairperson Retainer
	 	 	    	$15,000 per year
	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chairperson Retainer	 	 	    	$10,000 per year
	 Annual Stock Option Grant
	 	 	    	20,000 shares per year
EXHIBIT 

C 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-4 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-4 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 0823

_____________________________
J AMES T HOMAS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Kevin J. Carroll , Judge

. February 1, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , R OWE and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

James Thomas
, pro se, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JASON M. MALIK, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 Case no. 08-13832

v. 

 Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

EQUIFAX INFORMATION 

SERVICES, et al.,

 Defendants. 

__________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On October 21, 2008, the court entered an order denying plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis. The order required plaintiffs to pay the filing fee by November 20, 2008, and

further stated that failure to pay the filing fee by this deadline may result in the dismissal of the

complaint. To date, the fee has not been paid. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Date: March 06, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this

date, March 7, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:08-cv-13832-JCO-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 03/06/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 14
#### David Charles MARKOVITZ, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Renee Lynette MARKOVITZ, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 67949.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 5, 1996.

Leonard W. Buckley, St. Louis, for appellant.

Corinne R. Coston, Mary Ann Weems, Law Offices of Mary Ann Weems, Clayton, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The parties’ marriage was dissolved by the trial court. On appeal, husband alleges the trial court erred in awarding wife maintenance and awarding wife attorney’s fees. We disagree. The trial court acted within its discretion and its findings are supported by the evidence.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).