alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 16 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN R. WASHINGTON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. RONALD J. CHAMPION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 98-5134 (D.C. No. 95-CV-1077-C) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY, EBEL , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist 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.1 Petitioner filed his habeas petition in the distric t court on October 27, 1995,

prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Eff ective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effectiv e April 24, 1996). Petitioner must therefore obtain a certificate of probable cau se rather than a certificate of appealability. See United States v. Kunzman , 125 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.2 (10th Cir. 1997). -2- Marvin R. Washington was charged with first degree murder, convicted by a jury of first degree manslaughter, and sentenced by the court to fifty years’ imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were aff irmed on appeal. He unsuccessfully sought habeas relief in the state co urts, and then filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied petitioner’s habeas petition and his application for a certificate of probable cause for appeal. 1 Petitioner renews his request for a certificate of probable cause in this court so that he may appeal from the district court’s denial of habeas relief. In order to obtain a certificate of probable cause, a petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.” Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983) (quotation and citation omitte d). We have carefully reviewed petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause, his brief and appendix, and the district court’s order. We concl ude, for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-written order filed on July 7, 1998, that petitioner has failed t o make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.-3-

Accordingly, petitioner’s application for a certifi cate of probable cause is denied, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 202 (Friday, October 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24667]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

October 9, 2008.
    The Department of Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before November 17, 
2008, to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-XXXX.
    Type of Review: New Collection Request.
    Title: Rev Proc 2008-XX Exempt Organizations Voluntary Compliance 
Program (EOVCP).
    Description: This information collection is needed to offer a 
voluntary compliance program of limited time to non-filers of Form 990 
Series. The objective is to enhance voluntary compliance with respect 
to reporting and filing obligations under sections 26 U.S.C. 6033 and 
6011 for entities exempt under 26 U.S.C. 501(a). The data collected 
will be used by the Tax Exempt and Government Entities division of the 
Internal Revenue Service to help certain exempt organizations meet 
their reporting and filing obligations.
    Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 30,000 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Glenn P. Kirkland, (202) 622-3428, Internal 
Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Kimberly Nelson, (202) 395-3787, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.

Robert Dahl,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-24667 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Willie GREEN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARLING MARTINEZ, AKA Darling Otoniel Martinez Martinez,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72456

Agency No. A094

- 314

- 745

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted February 2 7 , 2023 * *
San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Darling Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an

immigration judge denying his application for withh olding of removal and for

* 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 27 2023

MOLLY C. D WYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72456

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the crimes

Martinez suffered in El Salvador were n ot on account of a protected ground. See

Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 3 57 (9th Cir. 2017) ( explaining that to

qualify for withholding of removal

, a p erson must show that their life or freedom

will be threatened because of their “ race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion ” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) ) )

.

The record does not compel the conclusion that the extortion

, shooting at his

family ’s home

, and death threat by gang members were mot ivated by any intent to

harm Martinez specifically or by anything other than general criminality. See

Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 101 5

- 1 6 (9th Cir. 2010) (“ An alien’s desire to be

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground. ”) . The BIA therefore did not err in

denying Martinez’s application for withholding of removal. See id.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Martinez did

not demonstrate tha t he is more likely than not to suffer torture inflicted by, at the

instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of Salvadoran officials, if

returned to El Salvador

. See Zheng v. Ashcroft

, 332 F.3d 1186, 119 3

- 9 5 (9th Cir.

2003) ( explaining the gove rnment acquiescence requirement for CAT relief )

. The3 18

- 72456

BIA thus did not err in denying Martinez’s request for relief under CAT.

PETITION DENIED.
EXHIBIT 10.26

CONFIDENTIAL TERMINATION AND SEPARATION AGREEMENT  AND GENERAL RELEASE

This Confidential Termination and Separation Agreement and General Release ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between Mark P. Long on behalf of
himself and his agents, heirs, executors, assigns and any other person or entity acting with him or on his behalf ("Employee" or "Long"), on the one hand, and Intraware, Inc. ("Intraware") on
behalf of itself, its present and former parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliated divisions and companies, successors and assigns, and the present and former owners, directors, officers, employees,
and agents of any of them (collectively "Employer"), on the other hand (Employee and Employer collectively are referred to as "the Parties"). It is made pursuant to the following terms and conditions.





---





2

---









3

---









4

---





|To Employee: |  | Mark P. Long
1022 Sunrise Ridge Drive
Lafayette, CA 94549
Facsimile: 925-957-1532     
|------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|To Employer: |  | General Counsel
Intraware, Inc.
25 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Facsimile: 925-253-6590

12. THE SIGNATORIES HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE. ITS CONTENTS HAVE BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED TO THEM BY THEIR ATTORNEYS, OR
THEY HAVE VOLUNTARILY ELECTED NOT TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. THE SIGNATORIES FULLY UNDERSTAND THE FINAL AND BINDING EFFECT OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE ONLY PROMISES OR REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO ANY
SIGNATORY ABOUT THIS AGREEMENT, OR TO INDUCE THEM TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT, ARE CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT. THE SIGNATORIES ARE SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.

|DATED: April    , 2001 |  |                 |  | 
|---------------------- |  | --------------- |  | 
|                       |  | Mark P. Long   
|                       |  | INTRAWARE, INC.
|DATED: April    , 2001 |  | By              |  | 
|                       |  |                 |  | 
|                       |  | Name:           |  | 
|                       |  |                 |  | 
|                       |  | Title:          |  | 
|                       |  |                 |  | 

5

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32

CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We, Andrew F. Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Phillip A. Reinsch, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Capstead Mortgage Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  |  |     |  |                                                                        
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 4, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBS                                                   
|                  |  |     |  | Andrew F. Jacobs
President and Chief Executive Officer                 
|                  |  |    
|Date: May 4, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCH                                                 
|                  |  |     |  | Phillip A. Reinsch
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7122

In Re: CLARENCE HICKS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-2076-L)

Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Hicks, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Hicks filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion in

the District Court for the District of Maryland on June 19, 2002,

attacking his 2000 criminal conviction and 360-month sentence. The

Government responded to the motion on October 17, 2002, and Hicks

replied to the response in November of that year. No further

action has been taken in the case with the exception of numerous

motions filed by Hicks. 

Hicks has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus

complaining of the district court’s delay in acting on this case.

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21(b) and 4th Cir. R. 21, the

Government was directed to answer the petition and has done so.

The Government offers no explanation for the delay in the case.

Writs of habeas corpus are intended to afford a speedy remedy to

those illegally restrained. Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1284

(10th Cir. 1990). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a) (2000), the

district court must give priority to habeas corpus cases over other

civil cases. 

As we conclude that Hicks has established a clear and

indisputable right to expeditious treatment of his § 2255 motion,

and no other adequate remedy is available, we find that he has

shown his entitlement to the writ of mandamus. See Allied Chem.

Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); In re Beard, 811

F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Therefore, the petition for writ of
- 3 -

mandamus is granted. The district court is ordered to act on case

No. 02-2076 within sixty days of the date of this opinion. We

grant Hicks leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 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.

PETITION GRANTED
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 Hickory Tech Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David A. Christensen, Chief Financial Officer of HickoryTech, 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 HickoryTech.
 
 
 
 /s/ David A. Christensen
 David A. Christensen
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 May 3, 2011
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# Times and Dates: 

2:30 p.m., Monday, October 20, 2008; and 8 a.m., Tuesday, October 21, 2008.

# Place: 

Memphis, Tennessee, at the Peabody Hotel, 149 Union Avenue.

# Status: 

(Closed).

# Matters to be Considered: 

## Monday, October 20, at 2:30 p.m. (Closed)

1. Financial Matters.

2. Product Pricing.

3. Strategic Issues.

4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.

5. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.

## Tuesday, October 21, at 8 a.m. (Closed)

1. Continuation of Monday's agenda.

# Contact Person for More Information: 

Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-24534 Filed 10-10-08; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.1


PROMISSORY NOTE


  $17,322.00                                                BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
                                                           as of March 31, 2000

WITHIN THREE YEARS, the undersigned promises to pay to the order of The
Chapman Co., Seventeen thousand three hundred twenty-two dollars
($17,322.00), at its offices in Baltimore, Maryland, together with interest
thereon from the date hereof until paid at the rate of 6.45% per annum.



                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Nathan A. Chapman, Jr.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Dividend Capital Trust Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-116929 and No. 333-122260) on Form S-3 of
Dividend Capital Trust Inc. of our reports dated March 16, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Dividend Capital Trust Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit) and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the period from inception (April 12, 2002) to December 31, 2002, and the related schedule III, management's assessment of the effectiveness
on internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in
the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Dividend Capital Trust Inc.

Our
report dated March 16, 2005, on management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, contains an explanatory paragraph that states our audit excluded the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting associated with the
excluded property operations of the seventy-two real estate properties acquired during 2004, that had revenues totaling $15,965,524 and non-real estate assets totaling
$8,656,475, included in the consolidated financial statements of Dividend Capital Trust Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004.

| |  | KPMG LLP
| |  | --------

Denver,
Colorado
March 16, 2005



QuickLinks
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129249-50 & (45) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Marilyn Kelly 

Petitioner-Appellee, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, v SC: 129249 Justices COA: 252288 
 Wayne CC: 03-304444-AA

GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 129250 

 COA: 252428 
 Wayne CC: 03-304443-CZ

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the motion to file brief amicus curiae are 

considered. The motion to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. Pursuant to MCR 

7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court 

of Appeals. The Court of Appeals erred in considering the substance of the issues 

involved in this case because, as stated by dissenting Court of Appeals Judge Talbot, 

those issues are moot in light of the fact that Grosse Pointe Public Schools has paid for 

the individual educational evaluation at issue. Although the Court of Appeals correctly 

cited the test for determining when a moot issue ought to be reviewed, i.e., when “the 

issue is one of public significance that is likely to recur, yet evade judicial review,” 

Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 112 (2002), we agree with the 

dissent that the court erred in considering the issues based on a mere finding that the 

issues “could” recur and evade judicial review. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

p0419 

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. 

April 26, 2006 

Clerk