alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Soul et al. *v.*Klein, Trustee in Bankruptcy.

(No. 23417

Decided March 16, 1932.)

*Messrs. Vickery, Duffey & Vickery*and *Messrs. Tolies, Hogsett & Ginn,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Sidney N. Weits,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
#### Rafael GONZALES-ZEPEDA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72645.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 30, 2003.

*707Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rafael Gonzales-Zepeda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review findings of fact for substantial evidence and will uphold the decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 480-81, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

The IJ erred in finding Gonzales-Zepeda not credible solely because of his failure to provide corroborative evidence. *See Salaam v. INS,*229 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.2000). However, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that GonzalesZepeda did not suffer past persecution, or possess a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of his membership in any statutorily protected group. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

The record does not compel the conclusion that Gonzales-Zepeda faces persecution due to imputed political opinion, notwithstanding his father’s position in the military, absent evidence that his father held particular political beliefs or that guerillas knew of or assumed any such beliefs and imputed them to Gonzales-Zepeda. *See Molino-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th Cir.2002).

Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Gonzales-Zepeda’s former membership in the civil patrol was insufficient to establish membership in a particular social group for the purpose of granting asylum. *See Cruz-Navarro v. INS,*232 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir.2000).

Because he did not make the requisite showing for asylum, it follows that Gonzales-Zepeda failed to satisfy the more stringent standard required to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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.
Exhibit
        23.3
  **Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 333-74197, 333-86728 and 333-124960) (pertaining to the 1995 Amended
      and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, the 1998 Non-Executive
      Employee Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan and the 2004 Stock
      Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-95361,
      333-33986, 333-37630, 333-45818, 333-49628, 333-59346, 333-63514, 333-99559,
      333-99673, 333-106420, 333-110729, 333-112611, 333-124959, 333-124961,
      333-128497 and 333-129713) of our reports dated January 31, 2006 with respect
      to
      the financial statements of Armour of America, Inc. and March 10, 2006 with
      respect to the financial statements of IES Interactive Training, Inc. for the
      year ended December 31, 2005 included in Arotech Corporation’s Annual Report on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.


/s/ Stark
                Winter Schenkein & Co., LLPStark
                Winter Schenkein & Co.,
                LLP


Denver,
      Colorado


April
      16,
      2007
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6308 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve the way beneficiaries are assigned under the Medicare shared savings program by 

also basing such assignment on primary care services furnished by nurse 

practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2021 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. GALLAGHER, and Miss 

RICE of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve 

the way beneficiaries are assigned under the Medicare 

shared savings program by also basing such assignment 

on primary care services furnished by nurse practitioners, 

physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ACO Assignment Im5 provement Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6308 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF BENE2 FICIARIES UNDER THE MEDICARE SHARED 

3 SAVINGS PROGRAM. 

4 Section 1899(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395jjj(c)(1)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

7 the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

9 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(C) in the case of performance years be13 ginning on or after January 1, 2022, primary 

14 care services provided under this title by an 

15 ACO professional described in subsection 

16 (h)(1)(B).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.4.9
  No.
    
    $
  
 SECURITIES ACT RESALE
RESTRICTION TERMINATION DATE ISSUER RULE 144A QIB
 B-1




---



##### 



ERISA BENEFIT PLAN INVESTOR CODE AB INITIO
  B-2




---



##### 



Issuer    Series 2009-4 Interest Period provided however
 VMS
  B-3




---



##### 



B-4




---



##### 



CHESAPEAKE FUNDING LLCBy:Name:Title:   THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as      Indenture TrusteeBy:Authorized Signatory B-5




---



##### 



Class B Investor Notes Base Indenture Indenture Trustee Series 2009-4 Indenture Supplement Indenture
  Payment Date
   plus Class
B Note Rate One-Month LIBOR
 B-6




---



##### 



provided , however One-Month LIBOR provided , further One-Month LIBOR provided finally One-Month LIBOR
     B-7




---



##### 



B-8




---



##### 



Issuer
    provided Section 6.2
 B-9




---



##### 



Dated:
    
    By:
    
    
    
    1Signature Guaranteed:
 
 1/
    
    NOTE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name of the
registered owner as it appears on the face of the within Class B Investor Note, without
alteration, enlargement or any change whatsoever. B-10
Exhibit 23
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-92143) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan of
Southwest Bancorp, Inc.(2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-120685) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan of
Southwest Bancorp, Inc.(3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-97850) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of Southwest Bancorp, Inc.(4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-147249) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan of
Southwest Bancorp, Inc.(5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3, Nos. 333-151384 and 151384-3) pertaining to the shelf
registration of securities of Southwest Bancorp, Inc.(6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-155648) pertaining to the 2008 Stock Based Award
Plan of Southwest Bancorp, Inc.(7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-156572) pertaining to the Capital Purchase Program
participation by Southwest Bancorp, Inc.(8)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-165451) pertaining to the shelf registration of
securities of Southwest Bancorp, Inc.
   
 106
Exhibit (32)



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report), I, Michael H. Thaman, 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael H. Thaman  
|Chief Financial Officer



November 4, 2004
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAMIMU MUSSA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74948

Agency No. A079-578-538

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Hamimu Mussa, a native and citizen of Rwanda, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen. We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo

questions of law, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny

the petition for review. 

FILED

MAR 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74948

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mussa’s motion to reopen as

untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final

decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mussa failed to present evidence of

changed circumstances in Rwanda to qualify for an exception to the time limit, see

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004)

(“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that

a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a

well-founded fear of future persecution.”). Further, the BIA did not abuse its

discretion in denying Mussa’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of

counsel, because he failed to show that he was prejudiced by his former counsel’s

conduct. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-90 (prejudice results when the

performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome

of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 27, 2020

No. 04-18-00833-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.G. AND Z.A.G., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017FLI001815 C3

The Honorable Missy Medary, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

In the underlying case, the Texas Attorney General sued Abelardo G. Gonzalez for child 

support. Gonzalez answered and filed a counterclaim against his wife, Ivonne I. Gonzalez, 

raising issues relating to possession and access. Gonzalez also filed a third-party action against 

Webb County District Judge Jose A. Lopez, Webb County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Ponce 

Trevino, City of Laredo Police Department Officer Nicolas Lichtenberger, and City of Laredo 

Police Department Officer Robert Garcia. All four third-party defendants were sued in their 

official capacities only.

Gonzalez timely appealed the final judgment. The record and Gonzalez’s brief have been 

filed. In his brief, Gonzalez raises issues challenging the orders and judgments disposing of all 

the claims and third-party claims. The Texas Attorney General (Child Support Division) and 

Ivonne Gonzalez, pro se, have been apprised of the filing of Gonzalez’s brief, but neither filed an 

appellee’s brief. However, it appears that the third-party defendant appellees were not notified 

by the clerk of this court of the filing of the record or Gonzalez’s brief.

We therefore order the appellee’s briefs of Webb County District Judge Jose A. Lopez, 

Webb County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Ponce Trevino, City of Laredo Police Department 

Officer Nicolas Lichtenberger, and City of Laredo Police Department Officer Robert Garcia due 

February 26, 2020. We further order the clerk of this court to send a copy of appellant’s brief to 

counsel for each of the third-party defendant appellees.

It is so ORDERED on January 27, 2020.
 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ

 CLERK OF COURT
EX10.12009EIPAmend3


EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO 
AGENUS 
2009 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
The 2009 Equity Incentive Plan (as amended) of Agenus Inc. (the “Plan”) be and hereby is amended as follows: 
		
	1.
	Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence thereof and replacing it with the following: 


“Subject to adjustment under Section 3(b), the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock of the Company (the “Common Stock”) that may be issued pursuant to the Plan is 10,200,000 shares.” 
 
Except as set forth above, the remainder of the Plan remains in full force and effect. 
Approved by the Board of Directors – February 26, 2014 
              Approved by the Stockholders – April 23, 2014
#### Caroline N. Francis, Plaintiff, *v.*Philip Ziering and Max Lencet, Defendants.

Second Department,

October 22, 1908.

Real property—covenant restricting building line — party.

A covenant by which a grantee, his heirs and assigns, agrees with the grantor, his heirs and assigns, never to erect a building on the premises within ten feet of the street line, runs with the land, is binding upon grantor’s assigns holding under a similar deed, and may be enforced by an opposite owner holding under a deed from the common grantor.

Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

*Charles H. Machín,*for the plaintiff.

*Meyer D. Siegel,*for the defendants.

Rich, J.:

Defendants’ grantors became possessed of a piece of real property on Bay avenue in 1889, under a deed containing the provision: “And the said party of the second part, for himself, his heirs and assigns, doth further covenant to and with the said party of the first part, his heirs, executors and administrators, that neither the party of the second part nor liis heirs or assigns shall or will ever erect or permit on said premises or any portion thereof any building within ten feet of the land of said Bay Avenue,” and the conveyance to the defendants reiterates this provision. In 1907 defendants erected a stone and brick structure upon said premises, which exténds to the building line of the street beyond the front of the other buildings on the avenue, and it is sought by plaintiff, who is the owner of a dwelling house on the opposite side of the street, to perpetually enjoin the defendants from maintaining a building or structure within ten feet of the northerly line of the street.

We are, at a loss to understand why there should be any disagreement as to the meaning of this clause. There are several- separate covenants contained in the deed. The one under consideration, however, may be construed without reference to the others. It runs with the land, and provides that the grantor, his heirs and *254assigns, should never erect or permit on said premises or any portion thereof any building within ten feet of the land, of Bay avenue; that is, within ten feet of the street line. When the defendants acquired title to the premises it was subject to this restriction. They undertook to keep the covenant, and cannot complain if neighbors object to its violation. The plaintiff acquired title to the premises owned by her from defendants’ grantor, who was the common grantor of all of the property in that block upon which dwelling houses have been erected, and if she feels herself aggrieved the power of the court may be invoked for relief, and judgment is ordered for'the plaintiff for the relief demanded.

Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment for the plaintiff on submission of controversy, with costs.
EXHIBIT 11

SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(In thousands, except per share data)

                                               QUARTER ENDED		  SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                             	May 4,  	May 3,	  May 4,   	May 3,
                                            	  1996 		  1997		   1996 		   1997	

NET EARNINGS
	Primary and Fully diluted
	 net earnings	                             $ 4,775	 $ 6,675	 $ 8,561	 $ 12,153

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES 
 OUTSTANDING
	Weighted average common
	 shares outstanding	                        23,419	  26,387	  23,387   	26,385
	Add:  Shares issuable from
	 assumed exercise of option            	     1,184	   1,369	   1,069	    1,287
		
	Primary weighted average	                   24,603	  27,756 	 24,456 	  27,672
	 shares outstanding	
	Add:  Additional shares
	 issuable from assumed
	 exercise of options due to
	 the difference in the share
	 repurchase price under the
	 fully diluted computation	                    176	      69	     303	       59

Fully diluted weighted average
 shares outstanding	                         24,779	  27,825   24,759 	  27,731
	 

NET EARNINGS PER SHARE

	Primary	                                  $    .19	 $   .24 	 $  .35   	$  .44
	Fully diluted	                            $    .19  	$  .24	  $  .35	   $  .44
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Applera Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis L. Winger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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/ Dennis L. Winger                                                                                     |   |   |  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--|
|  

 

 

Chief          Financial Officer

 

 

 

Date: November 6, 2006 |
#### Carla Comerford, Administrator of the Estate of John V. Comerford, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. Jones, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 10,703.

Fourth District.

July 7, 1966.

Rehearing denied August 1, 1966.

Olsen, Cantrill & Miller, of Springfield, for appellant; Gillespie, Burke & Gillespie, of Springfield, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE CRAVEN.

Not to be published in full.
Return to:

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 301 Fannin, Room 245 Houston, TX 77002

NO. 14-_15_-00202-CR Anthony Deon Bradford, Appellant § COURT OF APPEA LS § 14TH DISTRICT The State of Texas § HOUSTON, TEXAS

Pro se Motion for Access to Appellate Record To the Honorable Justices of Said Court: On July 23, 2015, appellant’s appointed counsel fi led a brief in the above styled and numbered cause pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Anthony Deon Bradford, appellant, moves this court to provide him pro se access to a copy of the appellate record including the clerk’s record and the court reporter’s record. Appellant requests an extension of time of 30 days from the date he receives the appellate record to file a pro se response to c ounsel’s Anders brief. Respectfully submitted,

_____________________ Pro se Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on ___________, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served by mail on the Ga lveston County District Attorney’s Office at the following address: Jack Ro ady, Galveston County, Criminal District Attorney, 600 59th St # 1001, Gal veston, TX 77551.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAROLD HARTER,

Plaintif f

- Appellant,

v.

E.K. Mc DANIEL, Warden; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 17101

D.C. No. 3:16

- c v

- 00118

- RCJ

- WGC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24 , 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Harold Harter appeals pro se fro m the district court’s judgment in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection and due process claims in

connection with parole consideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute.

* 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

JUN 6 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 17101

Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc ., 356 F .3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discreti on by dismissing Harter’s action

for failure to prosecute because Harter was given leave to amend his complaint and

he failed to do so

. See Edwards

, 356 F.3d at 1065 (“The failure of the plaintiff

eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum

– either by amending the complaint

or by indicating to the court that it will not do so

– is properly met with the

sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” ) ; Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier , 191 F.3d 983, 989

(9th Cir. 1999) (listing factors to be considered in dismissing a case as a sanction

for failure to prosecute )

.

Because Harter’s action was dismissed as a sanction for failure to prosecute,

the dismissal of his due pr ocess claim is not reviewable. See Al

- Torki v. Kaempen

,

78 F .3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) ( “[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable

after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissa l for failure to

prosecute[.]”).

AFFIRMED.