alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SVITLANA LICHTENSTEIN

, Appellant,

v.

REALCET, LLC

, Appellee.

No. 4D17

- 2615

[ March 22, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Marina Garcia

- Wood, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 16

- 23085 (18).

Andrey Solonenko, Miramar, for appellant.

Peter B. Weintraub of Weintraub & Weintraub, P.A., Boca Raton, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, C ONNER

, JJ., and R OBERTS

, K ATHLEEN H ., Associate Judge , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In re CANAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY in Liquidation, Plaintiff and Appellant. Intervention of E. C. PALMER & COMPANY, Limited, Intervener and Appellee.

No. 14824.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 24, 1935.

For former opinion, see 154 So. 498.

Dufour, St. Paul, Levy & Miceli, of New Orleans (Rene J. Waguespack, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellant.

Henican & Carriere, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Intervener, E. C. Palmer & Co., Limited, seeks in this proceeding to be recognized as a privileged creditor in the sum of $327.60, invoking the provisions of Act No. 63 of 1926. There was judgment below in favor of E. C. Palmer & Co., Limited, recognizing a privilege in the amount set forth.

An appeal was taken to this court by Canal Bank & Trust Company in liquidation, and, on May 7, 1934, the decree of the lower court was affirmed. Thereafter, on the 4th day of February, 1935, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. (Intervention of John F. Clark & Co.), 181 La. 856, 160 So. 609, a case which cannot be distinguished in principle from the present one, held that no privilege existed in similar circumstances.

Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decree rendered by us on the 7th day of May, 1934, be and it is recalled and annulled; and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court be annulled, avoided, and reversed.

It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment herein in favor of E. C. Palmer & Co., Limited, inter-vener, and against J. S. Brock, state banking commissioner, through Harry G. Thompson, his special agent, in charge of Canal Bank & Trust Company in Liquidation, in the full sum of $327.60, recognizing-the intervener as an ordinary creditor, to be paid in due course of the administration of the liquidation proceeding; intervener to pay the costs of appeal.

Original decree recalled; judgment of trial court reversed.
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 Annual Report of Hirsch  International  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  January 28,  2006,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Beverly Eichel,  Executive Vice President - Finance,  Chief Financial Officer
and Secretary  hereby  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 and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                      -------------------------------
                                      Beverly Eichel, Executive Vice President
                                      of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and
                                      Secretary

April 27, 2006

     This  certification  is made solely for the  purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any
other purpose.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

          In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert F. Gallagher,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

          (1)     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| Date: March 14, 2007 | /s/ ROBERT F.   GALLAGHER |
|----------------------|---------------------------|
|                 |                           |
|                 | Robert F. Gallagher       |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer   |
EXHIBIT 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Manmohan Minhas certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10 QSB of  Minhas  Energy
     Consultants, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material  fact or omit to state a  material  fact  necessary  to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which such statements
     were made,  not  misleading  with  respect  to the  period  covered by this
     quarterly report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information  included  in  this  report,  fairly  present  in all  material
     respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
     procedures  (as  defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and I have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
          material  information  relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
          consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
          entities,  particularly  during  the  period in which  this  quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c)   presented in this report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
          the disclosure  controls and procedures  based on our evaluation as of
          the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of directors  (or
     persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6.   I have  indicated  in this  report  whether or not there  were  significant
     changes in internal  controls or in other factors that could  significantly
     affect  internal  controls  subsequent  to  the  date  of our  most  recent
     evaluation,  including any  corrective  actions with regard to  significant
     deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 9, 2007


By: /s/ Manmohan Minhas
   -----------------------------
   Manmohan  Minhas
   President and CEO
EX-4.13



 Exhibit 4.13 

JOINDER AGREEMENT 
 November 22, 2013 

Delhaize Group 
 Square Marie Curie 40 

1070 Brussels 
 Belgium 

Attention: Chief Financial Officer 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is made to that certain cross-guarantee agreement, dated as of May 21, 2007 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from
time to time, the “Cross-Guarantee Agreement”), by and among Delhaize Group, a limited liability company (“société anonyme”) organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Belgium
(“Delhaize Group”), Delhaize America, LLC, a limited liability company wholly-owned by Delhaize Group organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina (“Delhaize America”), and the other
wholly-owned Subsidiaries of Delhaize Group signatory thereto or that have become a party thereto (collectively with Delhaize Group and Delhaize America, the “Guarantors” and individually, a
“Guarantor”). 
 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 
 This letter supplements the Cross-Guarantee Agreement and is delivered by the undersigned, Retained Subsidiary
One, LLC (the “New Guarantor”), pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Cross-Guarantee Agreement. The New Guarantor hereby agrees to be bound as a Guarantor by all of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in the
Cross-Guarantee Agreement as of November 22, 2013. Without limiting the foregoing, the New Guarantor hereby makes each of the representations and warranties and agrees to each of the covenants applicable to Guarantors contained in the
Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 
 THIS LETTER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the New Guarantor has caused this letter to be executed and delivered by its duly authorized officer as
of the date first above written. 
  

					
	RETAINED SUBSIDIARY ONE, LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ G. Linn Evans
		 	Name:	 	G. Linn Evans
		 	Title:	 	Secretary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHIYONG LI, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71263 

Agency No. A087-715-963 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 30, 2021**

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

Shiyong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) March 26, 2015 order denying his motion to 

reopen proceedings.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 5 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-71263 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of 

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 

964 (9th Cir. 2002). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the 

denial was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 

977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We deny 

the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Li failed to establish 

prima facie eligibility for asylum. Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 

(9th Cir. 2016). Li did not adduce “credible, direct, and specific evidence” to 

demonstrate an objectively well-founded fear that he would be persecuted by the 

Chinese government based upon his political activities in the United States. Malty 

v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2004). As the BIA explained, Li has not 

presented sufficient evidence that the Chinese government will target him in 

China. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). For example, Li 

is not a high-profile activist, he submitted articles that do not relate to him, and the 

letter from his daughter is vague. 

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

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


                                                               COMPANY'S 
                                               JURISDICTION    PERCENTAGE
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                           OF INCORPORATION  OWNERSHIP 
------------------                           ----------------  ----------

Amli Residential Properties, L.P.. . . . . .     Delaware          84%
   A. Amrescon, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .     Georgia           95%
   B. Amli Institutional Advisors, Inc.. . .     Illinois          95%
   C. Amli Management Company. . . . . . . .     Delaware          95%
   D. Laurel Park Venture. . . . . . . . . .     Georgia          100%
   E. Pleasant Hill Joint Venture. . . . . .     Georgia           40%
   F. Amli Foundation Co-Investors, L. P.  .     Delaware          25%
   G. Amli Foundation Co-Investors-II,
        L. P. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     Delaware          15%
   H. Amli at Champions, L. P. . . . . . . .     Texas             15%
   I. Amli at Windbrooke, L. P.  . . . . . .     Illinois          15%
   J. Amli at Willeo Creek, L. P.  . . . . .     Georgia           30%
   K. Barrett Lakes, L.L.C.. . . . . . . . .     Georgia           35%
   L. Amli at Chevy Chase, L.P.. . . . . . .     Illinois          33%
   M. Amli at Willowbrook, L.P.. . . . . . .     Illinois          40%
   N. Amli at River Exchange, L.L.C. . . . .     Delaware          40%
   O. Acquiport/Aurora Crossing, L.P.. . . .     Delaware          25%
   P. Acquiport/Fossil Creek, L.P. . . . . .     Delaware          25%
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 15, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL KEITH TIVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PATTY BEECROFT, M.D.;

RON LEYBA, Warden; JOE ORTIZ,

Executive Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-1453

(D.C. No. 1:06-cv-02025-WYD-CBS)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

Michael Keith Tivis, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in this action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Tivis suffers from degenerative joint disease in his left

hip. The arguments on appeal concern only one defendant, Dr. Patty Beecroft. 
-2-

Mr. Tivis contends that Dr. Beecroft has exhibited deliberate indifference to his

severe medical needs by delaying and denying recommended hip replacement

surgery and his receipt of appropriate pain medication. 

It is apparent that Mr. Tivis sincerely disagrees with Dr. Beecroft’s

diagnoses and prescribed course of treatment for his degenerative joint disease. 

In light of the medical record, however, his beliefs do not establish a

constitutional violation. See Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 811

(10th Cir. 1999); Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993); see also

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). To the extent he argues on appeal

that the administration of psychotropic medications is a separate constitutional

violation, the claim was not presented as such before the district court, and thus it

will not be considered on appeal. See Bancamerica Commercial Corp. v. Mosher

Steel of Kan., Inc., 100 F.3d 792, 798-99 (10th Cir.), amended on other grounds,

103 F.3d 80 (10th Cir. 1996). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the

reasons set forth in the district court’s order dated September 24, 2007.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7291
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RANDALL WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-98-293, CA-01-382-6-24) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall White, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Randall White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that White has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. SeeUnited States v. White , Nos. CR-98-293; CA-01-382-6-24 (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 532 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 532

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an inflation 
  adjustment for the amount of the maximum benefit under the special 
   estate tax valuation rules for certain farm, etc., real property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 1995

  Mr. Herger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an inflation 
  adjustment for the amount of the maximum benefit under the special 
   estate tax valuation rules for certain farm, etc., real property.

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

SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF MAXIMUM BENEFIT UNDER SPECIAL ESTATE 
              TAX VALUATION RULES FOR CERTAIN FARM, ETC., REAL 
              PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 2032A(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on aggregate reduction in 
fair market value) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) Limitation on aggregate reduction in fair market 
        value.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The aggregate decrease in the 
                value of qualified real property taken into account for 
                purposes of this chapter which results from the 
                application of paragraph (1) with respect to any 
                decedent shall not exceed $750,000.
                    ``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of estates 
                of decedents dying in a calendar year after 1994, the 
                $750,000 amount set forth in subparagraph (A) shall be 
                increased by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) $750,000, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for such 
                        calendar year.
        Any increase determined under the preceding sentence shall be 
        rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
#### Northern Insurance Company of New York. Respondent, v. Henry P. Wood and George W. Comstock, Copartners as Wood Brothers & Comstock, Appellants.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
[No. 34086.

Department Two.

July 11, 1957.]

#### Joe W. McCaffrey, *Appellant,*v. David M. Downie *et al., Respondents.**1*

*Bassett, Vance & Davies*and *Stephen V. Carey,*for appellant.

*Lycette, Diamond & Sylvester,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 313 P. (2d) 681.

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries which the plaintiff alleged he received when he was struck in the right eye by the defendant. The cause was tried to the court, which, upon sharply conflicting evidence, found that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proof.

The appellant’s assignments of error raise but one significant question — whether the evidence, as a matter of law, preponderates against this finding. Unless it does so preponderate, of course, the finding will not be disturbed on appeal. *Olsson v. Hansen, ante*p. 199, 310 P. (2d) 251; *Silhavy v. Doane, ante*p. 110, 309 P. (2d) 1047; *Brooks v. Warner, ante*p. 99, 309 P. (2d) 757.

After carefully reviewing the record, we cannot say that the finding is in error.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
#### Citizens’ National Bank of Saratoga Springs, New York, Respondent, v. Fred W. Gardner and Frances M. Gardner, Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                                                           (GRANT THORNTON LOGO)

ACCOUNTANTS AND BUSINESS ADVISORS

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors
SigmaTron International, Inc.

We have issued our report dated July 8, 2005, except for note C relating to
"Discontinued Operations" which is dated July 19, 2006, accompanying the
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows of
SigmaTron International, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended April 30,
2005, included in the Annual Report of SigmaTron International, Inc. and
Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2005. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements
of SigmaTron International, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No.
33-20147 and 333-52044).

GRANT THORNTON LLP


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Chicago, Illinois
July 13, 2007

175 W. Jackson Boulevard
20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
T 312.856.0200
F 312.565.4719
W www.grantthornton.com

GRANT THORNTON LLP
US MEMBER OF GRANT THORNTON INTERNATIONAL