alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1184

EUGENE OPOKU-BAMFO,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: July 16, 2014 Decided: July 30, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 

General, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Remi da 

Rocha-Afodu, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Opoku-Bamfo, a native and citizen of Ghana, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s decision, which denied Opoku-Bamfo’s motion for a 

continuance and ordered him removed to Ghana. We have reviewed 

the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion. See

Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting 

forth standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition 

for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re: OpokuBamfo (B.I.A. Jan. 29, 2014).*

 We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 * The Attorney General appears to concede that the Board 

failed to adequately address Opoku-Bamfo’s argument that the 

immigration judge did not give him an opportunity to seek 

prosecutorial discretion with the Department of Homeland 

Security (“DHS”). To the extent that any error occurred, we 

conclude that remand is not warranted “[b]ecause the result of a 

remand to the Board is a foregone conclusion such that remand 

would amount to nothing more than a mere formality.” Hussain v. 

Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). Opoku-Bamfo does 

not claim that he has ever attempted to confer with the DHS 

regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in his case, 

and thus cannot credibly claim that the agency should have 

granted an open-ended continuance on this ground.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Nove mber 4, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00549

- CR

Leopoldo CORTEZ

- LEIJA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5438

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant ’ s motion for rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on thi s 4th day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02225-LTB-MJW

BRAD DOWNS and
TERESA DOWNS,

Plaintiffs,
v.
SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., d/b/a/ THE GREAT INDOORS,

Defendant.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION REGARDING ORDER
SETTING SCHEDULING/PLANNING CONFERENCE

C Weckst pi 7)

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion
Regarding Order Setting Scheduling/Planning Conference. The Court has reviewed THE
pleadings regarding this matter and considered the entire file. The motion is GRANTED.
The Court orders as follows: The Scheduling/Planning Conference is rescheduled to
December 2, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. a

2%
DONE AND ORDERED this |3 day of September 2011.

& x peer Gene U6 BY THE COURT:

Sc hekuiing CRA 1 y hese [lt he

Sha he Fide us

ee 7 4 he i ut ate
pe Cone 7 Bott, MICHAEL J. WATANABE
2V peer. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Sleep, Circadian Function and Cardiometabolic Disease.
    Date: October 31, 2008.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference 
Call)
    Contact Person: Elaine Lewis, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Office, National Institute on 
Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, MSC-9205, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7707, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f3a333e36313a333a28362c1f31363e7131363771383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="53363f323a3d363f36243a20133d3a327d3d3a3b7d343c25">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel SWAN.
    Date: November 3, 2008.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, 
Bethesda, MD 20814. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Alicja L. Markowska, PhD, DSC, National 
Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-496-9666, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#157874677e7a626674557b7c743b7b7c7d3b727a63"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec818d9e87839b9f8dac82858dc2828584c28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-23445 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending May 30, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
**Exhibit 4.5.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF REDUCTION**

**TO**

**CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF**

**PREFERENCES OF SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK**

**OF**

**SYNBIOTICS CORPORATION**

**(a California Corporation)**

 

Christopher P. Hendy and Keith A. Butler hereby certify that: 

 

A.    They are the Vice President and the Secretary, respectively, of SynbioticsCorporation, a California corporation (the “Corporation”). 

 

B.    The Certificate of Determination of Preferences of Series B Preferred Stock of Synbiotics Corporation (the “Series B Certificate of Determination”) was filed with the Secretary of State ofCalifornia on January 4, 2002. 

 

C.    Pursuant to the authority given by the Corporation’s Articles of Incorporation, as amended to date, to decrease the number of shares constituting any series, the foregoing resolutions were duly adoptedby the Board of Directors of the Corporation to decrease the number of shares constituting the Series B Preferred Stock: 

 

“RESOLVED FURTHER, that upon the consummation of the transactions set forth in the Stock Swap Agreement, the 2,800 shares of Series BPreferred Stock shall be restored to the status of authorized but unissued shares of Series B Preferred Stock, and that immediately thereafter the authorized shares of Series B Preferred Stock shall be decreased from 4,000 shares to zero, with such4,000 shares to be restored to the status of authorized but undesignated shares of Preferred Stock.” 

 

“RESOLVED FURTHER, that Article 1 of Exhibit A to the Series B Certificate of Determination is amended to read in full as follows:

 

“Article 1.    Numberof Shares; Designation 

 

The series of PreferredStock established hereby shall be designated the “Series B Preferred Stock” and the authorized number of shares of Series B Preferred Stock shall be zero.” 

 

D.    The transactions set forth in the Stock Swap Agreement referenced in theresolutions set forth in Paragraph C above have been consummated. 

 

E.    There are no shares of Series B Preferred Stock issued and outstanding as of the date hereof. The number of shares constituting the Series B Preferred Stock shall be decreased to zero. 

 

F.    Upon the filing of this Certificateof Reduction, the Series B Certificate of Determination shall no longer be in force and the Series B Preferred Stock shall no longer be an authorized series of the Corporation in accordance with Section 401(f) of the California General CorporationLaw. 

 

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the undersigned certify under penalty of perjury that they have read the foregoing Certificate of Reduction and know the contents thereof, and that the statements therein are true and correct of their own knowledge. 

 

Executed in San Diego, California on December 5, 2002 

 
  
/s/    CHRISTOPHER P. HENDY        
  
**Christopher P. Hendy, Vice President**
  
/s/    KEITH A. BUTLER        
  
**Keith A. Butler, Secretary**

 

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6745
PERRY C. BRAXTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. PRATT; MR. GRIMES, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-325) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Perry C. Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the districtcourt's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Braxton v. Pratt , No. CA96-325 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 11, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00376-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.O. AND J.R.O., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-50993-2016 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Stoddart, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Before the Court is appellant’s pro se notice of nonsuit of his notice of appeal, which we 

treat as a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant has informed the Court that he no longer 

wishes to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

160376F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.O. 

AND J.R.O., CHILDREN 

No. 05-16-00376-CV 

 On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas. 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-50993-2016. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Myers and Stoddart participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee Rosalee C. Olofernes recover her costs of this appeal from 

appellant Jose Puerto Olofernes, Jr. 

Judgment entered May 11, 2016.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 33-61977
on Form S-8 dated August 21, 1995, and Registration Statement 33-61979 on Form
S-8 dated August 21, 1995, and Registration Statement 33-12571 on Form S-8
dated March 11, 1987, and Registration Statement 33-593 on Form S-8 dated
October 1, 1985, of our report dated February 14, 1996, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Medar, Inc. and subsidiaries
listed in the index at Item 14(a) of this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1995.



                                                               Ernst & Young LLP


Detroit, Michigan
March 26, 1996
AO 442 (Rev. 01/09) Arrest Warrant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No.

Defendant

ARREST WARRANT

To: Any authorized law enforcement officer

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay

(name of person to be arrested) ,

who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court:

Indictment Superseding Indictment Information Superseding Information Complaint

Probation Violation Petition Supervised Release Violation Petition Violation Notice Order of the Court

This offense is briefly described as follows:

Date:

Issuing officer’s signature

City and state:

Printed name and title

Return

This warrant was received on (date) , and the person was arrested on (date)

at (city and state) .

Date:

Arresting officer’s signature

Printed name and title

 District of Colorado

Waunita Weingart 11-cr-00355-MSK

Waunita Weingart

✔

Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1343 (10 counts) and Engaging in a Monetary Transaction in

Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1957 (5 counts).

08/31/2011

Denver, Colorado

s/ J. Patterson

Gregory C. Langham, Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 2 filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
AO 442 (Rev. 01/09) Arrest Warrant (Page 2)

This second page contains personal identifiers provided for law-enforcement use only

and therefore should not be filed in court with the executed warrant unless under seal.

(Not for Public Disclosure)

Name of defendant/offender:

Known aliases:

Last known residence:

Prior addresses to which defendant/offender may still have ties:

Last known employment:

Last known telephone numbers:

Place of birth:

Date of birth:

Social Security number:

Height: Weight:

Sex: Race:

Hair: Eyes:

Scars, tattoos, other distinguishing marks:

History of violence, weapons, drug use:

Known family, friends, and other associates (name, relation, address, phone number):

FBI number:

Complete description of auto:

Investigative agency and address:

Name and telephone numbers (office and cell) of pretrial services or probation officer (if applicable):

Date of last contact with pretrial services or probation officer (if applicable):

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 2 filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
Colella
       Venture
        Partners LLP


October 25, 2003
Good Buddy's Coffee Express, Inc.
7 Richmond Lane
Blythewood, SC 29016

Dear Scott,

	I wanted to thank you for the effort you put forward in your business
plan and the tour of the sites you offered me.    The current market trends
in your area are vastly different than those in the west coast.  We were
pleasantly surprised to have discovered this. My partners and I feel that a
significant opportunity exists to grow the specialty coffee business and would
like to discuss further how we may implement a strategy that will work.

	As with any relationship we want to establish our working directives
upfront and submit them to you before we require a commitment from you.  First
and foremost we will take an active role in the operations and systems
development for Good Buddy's Coffee Express (GBCE).  As we discussed we will
require 25% of your registered shares be transferred to us and we will have
an equal representation on the board.  Secondly we will establish a tiered
approach towards the disbursement of funds.  We are looking to make a total
investment of $50,000, in $10,000 increments to be utilized at our mutual
discretion.  The first seed round will be to procure the necessary leases
and equipment.  The second round will be utilized to establish the proper
systems product management and needed equipment  The details of the following
rounds will be discussed with a successful execution of the first two.

        If these terms and basic structure seem acceptable to you we will look
forward to establishing a project execution plan and moving forward.  As
always we wish you the best and look forward to working with you in this
endeavor.


/s/ Mark Colella
-------------------
Mark Colella
Managing Partner
EXHIBIT 31.1  CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Jeffery Joyce,
certify that:  1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Gulf Onshore, Inc.  2. Based on my
knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report;  4. The
registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:  a) designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in
this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and  b) any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.   Date: May 15,
2008        /s/
Jeffery Joyce    Jeffery
Joyce     President
& Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of SportsNuts, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, Kenneth I. Denos, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: November 10, 2003
                              By       /s/ Kenneth I. Denos
                              ------------------------------------------------
                                       Kenneth I. Denos
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>