alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2124

ABDUALI NIZAMETDINOV, Petitioner,
versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-603-350) Submitted: April 7, 2004 Decided: April 16, 2004 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian E. Mezger, LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN E. MEZGER, ESQUIRE, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michelle R. Thresher, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Abduali Nizametdinov, a native of China and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Nizametdinov challenges the immigration judge’s negative credibility finding. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in light of the immigration judge’s findings and conclude that Nizametdinov’s assertions are without merit. The immigration judge cited specific, cogent reasons for concluding that Nizametdinov’s testimony was not credible. Figeroa v. INS , 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). As the negative credibility determination is supported by the record and is entitled to deference, Nizametdinov does not qualify for the relief sought. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000); see Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2002). The standard for eligibility for withholding of removal is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Nizametdinov failed to establish entitlement to asylum, he cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of removal.- 3 - To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Nizametdinov’s evidence does not support such a conclusion. We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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 DENIED
8-K DISCLOSURE
NOTICE





Institutions
subject to SEC regulation may be required to disclosure certain information
regarding this amendment within four days
following implementation of this or any other executive or director
compensation program. Institutions should consult with SEC counsel as to
applicability of this requirement to this amendment.








IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THE
PRACTICE OF LAW AND ACCOUNTING





Nothing
in this document should be construed as tax, legal, or accounting
advice.  Benmark does not practice law or accounting.  The
attached Split Dollar Amendment contains recommended changes intended to
facilitate discussion between you and your legal and/or tax
advisor.  Benmark strongly recommends that you seek review by outside
counsel before signing this amendment.





Amendment


to
the


Temecula
Valley Bank


Split
Dollar Agreement for


Jim
Andrews





Temecula
Valley Bank (“Company”) and Jim Andrews (“Executive”) originally entered into
the Temecula Valley Bank Split Dollar Agreement (“Agreement”) on December 29,
2006. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement, the Company and the Executive
hereby adopt this Split Dollar Amendment, effective September 30,
2007.





RECITALS








1)
Section 2.2.1, “Death During Active Service”, shall be amended to delete the
words “$793,974 (Seven Hundred Ninety-three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-four
Dollars)” and to replace them with the words “$992,467 (Nine Hundred Ninety-two
Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars)”.








Therefore,
the foregoing changes are agreed to.











/s/Stephen H.
Wacknitz                                                      /s/Jim
Andrews


For the
Company                                                                           Jim
Andrews








Date:
December 31,
2007                                                                                     Date:
December 31, 2007
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

________________ _____________
No. 1D18-3198

________________ _____________
B RYAN E. H UNT , Appellant,

v.

N ORTH F LORIDA R EGIONAL M EDICAL C ENTER , I NC ., A LACHUA C OUNTY F IRE AND R ESCUE , and G AINESVILLE P OLICE D EPARTMENT , Appellees.

________________ _____________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Monica J. Brasington, Judge.

July 9, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , K ELSEY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.2 ________________ _____________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fl a. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

________________ _____________

Bryan E. Hunt, pro se, Appellant.

Linda L. Winchenbach of John M. Green, Jr., P.A., Ocala, for Appellee Gainesville Police De partment/City of Gainesville; Robert C. Swain of the Office of the Alachua County Attorney, Gainesville, for Appe llee Alachua County Fire and Rescue; and Jenifer Worley and William T. Ston e, Jr., of Saalfield Shad, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee North Fl orida Regional Medical Center.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 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 Ventures-National Incorporation d/b/a
Titan General Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
May 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, Curtis Okumura, Chief Executive 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:
 
 (1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Ventures-National Incorporation and will be retained by Ventures-National
Incorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
  **Ventures
      -National Incorporated**Date: July 14, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Curtis OkumuraCurtis OkumuraChief  Executive
      Officer
----

**Exhibit 23.3**

**TEPLOW GEOLOGIC**1518 Excelsior Ave. Oakland, CA 94602 Tel: 510-530-2210, Fax: 510-530-1098 Cell: 510-918-2210, E-mail: teplow@aol.com
August 8, 2009 

 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Re: Consent of Teplow Geologic 

In connection with U.S. Geothermal Inc’sregistration statement on Form 10K, S-3, S-8 and related filings under theUnited States Securities Act of 1933, I, William Teplow, on behalf of TeplowGeologic. (“Teplow”), hereby consent to the use of Teplow’s name and to the useof the “Preliminary Assessment of the Neal Hot Spring Geothermal Prospect” datedJune 16, 2006, references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof, orinformation derived from the Technical Report, in the Registration Statement.

Dated at Oakland, California this 8thday of August, 2009. 

/s/ William Teplow                                 William Teplow Consulting Geologist
#### Hoffman, Appellant, *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

*Negligence*— Railroads—Infant *trespasser*— Nonsuit.

In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for injuries sustained by a boy in consequence of being struck by one of defendant’s trains, a nonsuit was properly entered where it appeared that the boy was a trespasser, the tracks being so situated that they could only be reached with very great difficulty from the direction in which the boy approached, and there was no evidence of wilful or wanton conduct on the part of defendant’s^ servants.

Argued Jan. 7, 1915.

January 18, 1915:

Appeal, No. 221, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1911, No. 5815, refusing to take off a non-suit, in case of John Hoffman, by and Through His Father and Next Friend, Edward Hoffman, and Edward Hoffman, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Before Potter, Elkin, Stewart, Mosohzisker and Frazer, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Bregy, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The trial judge entered a nonsuit which the court in banc subsequently refused to take off. Plaintiffs appealed. <

*Error assigned*was in refusing to take off the nonsuit.

*Louis Goodfriend,*for appellants.

*Sellers & Rhoads,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The court below very properly refused to take off the *63judgment of nonsuit which, was entered in this case. The boy who was injured was clearly a trespasser upon the tracks of the defendant company, at a place, where the difficulty in getting upon them, from the direction in which the boy approached, was very great. It appears from the record, that in order to accomplish his purpose, the boy climbed more than thirty feet up the steplike end of a stone abutment, and then apparently stepped around the end of an iron fence, walked along one track, over a trestle and between iron girders, and then while in the act of crossing ánother track, was struck by an approaching train. There was no warrant or excuse for the action of the boy, in coming upon the tracks in this way. There is not the slightest intimation in the testimony, that the injury was the result of wilful or wanton conduct upon the part of any employee of the defendant company.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.2

                          LIGHT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

Starz Investments Ltd.
C/o 13/F Silver Fortune Plaza                             15 March 2002
1 Wellington Street
Central
Hong Kong

RE:  ADDENDUM TO REG S STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED 15 FEBRUARY 2002
                 -----------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen:

This Addendum sets forth the removal of the "Floor Price" as defined in section
1.1.2 of the Reg S Stock Purchase Agreement (the Agreement) dated February 15,
2002 between Light Management Group (The Company), the registered address of
which is Suite 301, 3060 Mainway, Burlington Ontario, L7M 1A3 Canada and Starz
Investments Limited a Belize corporation (the Purchaser), the registered address
of which is 60 Market Square, PO Box 364, Belize City, Belize whereby the
Company may alter or remove the Floor Price as defined in the Agreement,
provided the Company acts in accordance with the terms and conditions provided
in the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Company is removing the Floor Price from the Agreement for
the first 5,000,000 shares only and all other terms and conditions of the
Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company hereto has executed this Addendum to
          the Stock Purchase Agreement dated 15 February 2002.

          /s/ BARRINGTON L. SIMON                             3/15/02
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
              BARRINGTON L. SIMON                             DATE
UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Tristen H. MALFE

Hospitalman (E-3)

U.S. Navy

Appellant

NMCCA NO. 201900187

Panel 3

ORDER

Abating All Proceedings

Ab Initio

It has come to the Court’s attention1 that on 20 July 2021, while this appeal 

was still pending before the Court, Appellant died in Boulder County, Colorado, as a result of the toxic effects of fentanyl. The coroner ruled the manner 

of death as accident. 

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 30th day of March, 2022,

ORDERED:

(1) That all court-martial proceedings are ABATED AB INITIO.2

(2) That all rights, privileges, and property of which the Appellant was 

deprived by virtue of the execution of any portion of the sentence will be 

RESTORED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Notwithstanding N-M. Ct. Crim. App. R. 23.6, Appellant’s counsel has not filed a 

motion to attach a death certificate or to abate proceedings.

2 See United States v. Ribaudo, 62 M.J. 286, 289 (C.A.A.F. 2006), “[D]eath during 

the pendency of an appeal of right abates the proceedings ab initio.”
Copy to:

45 (CAPT Belsky)

46

02
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000769336
<NAME> COLUMBIA LEASE INCOME FUND II-E
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          98,092
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,979
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,076
<PP&E>                                         780,046
<DEPRECIATION>                                 344,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 544,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,190
<BONDS>                                        234,633
<COMMON>                                     2,075,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,820,462)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   544,986
<SALES>                                        165,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,342
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               195,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,598
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,447)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,447)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,447)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (8.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6774** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SOLOMON GLOVER, a/k/a Terry Tyreil Moore, a/k/a Box, a/k/a Tyreil Moore, a/k/a Tyreil Morgan , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:03

- cr - 00039

- AWA

- FBS

- 1; 2:13

- cv - 00203

- AWA )

Submitted : September 26, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013

Before MOTZ and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Solomon Glover, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Timothy Richard Mu rphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Solomon Glover seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2006 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a c onstitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional cl aims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedur al ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Glover has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, w e deny a certificate of appealability , deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument wo uld not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 7, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.217 Total Mortgages** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Arvle THACKER, Appellant, v. Montward JUSTICE and Joan Justice, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 11, 1974.

Burke & Justice, Pikeville, for appellant.

Charles E. Lowe, Sr., Lowe & Lowe, Pikeville, for appellees.

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; James B. Stephenson, Judge.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by Commissioner GARDNER, Affirming.*

*

 Opinion ordered not to be published.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SIERRA CLUB and §

DELAWARE AUDUBON, §

§ No. 216, 2015

Appellants Below-Appellants, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF § No. N13A-09-001 ALR and

NATURAL RESOURCES AND § No. N14A-05-002 ALR

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL and §

DELAWARE CITY REFINING §

COMPANY, LLC, §

§

Appellees Below-Appellees. §

Submitted: November 4, 2015

Decided: November 5, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 

O R D E R

This 5th day of November 2015, having considered this matter on the briefs filed 

by the parties and after oral argument, we find it evident that the judgment of the 

Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in its

March 31, 2015 decision, which affirmed the Environmental Appeals Board’s and the 

State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board’s dismissals of a challenge to the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Secretary’s grant of an air 

permit amendment.

1

 

1

Sierra Club v. Delaware Dep’t of Nat. Res. & Envtl. Control, Nos. N13A-09-001 ALR & 

N14A-05-002 ALR (Del. Super. Mar. 31, 2015). A sentence on page 14 of the Superior Court’s 

opinion could be read to suggest that the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board predicated 

its decision on exactly the same grounds as the Superior Court. Although the State Coastal Zone 
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is 

AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

Industrial Control Board did not do so, the Superior Court’s legal reasoning was correct and we 

affirm its judgment on that basis.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION *





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Rurban Financial Corp. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth
      A. Joyce, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 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, 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 and its
      subsidiaries.







/s/
      Kenneth A. Joyce*





Print
      Name: Kenneth A. Joyce


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


Date:
      August 13, 2007





*
      This
      certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section
      1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be
      deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
      subject to the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed
      to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of
      1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
      specifically incorporates it by reference into any such filing.




-39-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                          1,699
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                     683
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,486
<PP&E>                         49,659
<DEPRECIATION>                (34,113)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 18,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           7,351
<BONDS>                             0 
<COMMON>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                        142  <F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   18,032
<SALES>                         4,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,342
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                4,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   242 
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                      242 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.203 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.203 <F2>
<FN>
<F1> Partner equity - 1,190 Partnership units outstanding.
<F2> Per Partnership Unit in thousands.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 8, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.101 Nonfinancial Business 1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|