alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B L AN C A MAR I S OL P INE DA - GA R C I A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73663 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 358- 538 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B l anc aM ar i s ol P i ne da - G ar c i a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her ap p e a l f r o m an i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h e rap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, an dr e lie f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( “C A T ” ) .



# FI LED JU L 24 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73663 2 W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence th e ag en cy’ s factu al fi n d i n g s, ap p l yi n g th e n ew st an d ard s g o v ern i n g ad v erse c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n s c r e a te db yth e R e a l I D A c t. Sh restha v. H older , 590 F . 3 d1 0 3 4 , 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B IA co n cl u d edP i n ed a-G arci a w as n o tcred i b l e fo r a n u m b er o f reaso n s, i nc l udi ng he rl a c k of

know l e dge of

the c ont e ntof

the f l y e r s s he di s tr i but e d and the o m is s io n in h e ra s y lu m ap p lic a tio n o f o n e o f th r e e c la im e din c id e n ts o f h arm . S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e B I A ’s f in d in g . Se e i d. at1 0 4 8 (ad v erse cred i b i l i ty fi n d i n g reaso n ab l e u n d er t o t al i ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces). A cco rd i n g l y, w e deny the pet i t i on as t o P i neda-G ar ci a’ s a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al c la im s . Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). B ec ause P i neda-G ar ci a’ s C A T cl ai m i s bas ed on the sam e t es t i m on y the B IA foun d n otcr edi bl e, and she do es no tpo i ntt o any other e vi dence s ho w i ng i ti s m ore l i k el y th an n o tsh e w i l l b e t o rtu redi f retu rn edt o E l S al v ad o r, h er C A T cl ai m al so f a ils . Se e i d. a t1156- 57. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Converted by FileMerlin













Exhibit 10.1




RiT APPLIES TO TRANSFER ITS LISTING TO

NASDAQ SMALL CAP MARKET




Tel Aviv, Israel – December 23, 2003 – RiT Technologies (NASDAQ: RITT) (the “Company”) today announced that it is applying to transfer its shares to the Nasdaq SmallCap Market from the Nasdaq National Market. The decision follows the Company’s receipt of a Nasdaq Staff Determination on December 15, 2003, indicating that it no longer complies with the Shareholders’ Equity Requirement for continued listing as set forth in Marketplace Rule 4450(a)(3).

“In today’s economy, many companies are facing listing requirement challenges," said Liam Galin, President and CEO of RiT Technologies. "On the SmallCap Market, our shares will continue to trade freely and maintain the same stock symbol. We will continue rebuilding our business, taking advantage of opportunities in both the Enterprise and Carrier markets, and may reapply for listing on the Nasdaq National Market in the future."

About RiT Technologies

RiT Technologies pioneered the development of intelligent physical layer management solutions, designed to provide superior control, utilization and maintenance of networks. RiT's innovative solutions help customers capitalize on network investments and reduce cost of ownership.




RiT's Enterprise Solutions include PatchViewTM for full web-based management, planning and troubleshooting of network physical layer connectivity, and SMART CablingTM System components for single-source, end-to-end structured cabling solutions.




PairViewTM and PairQTM Carrier Solutions help telcos capitalize on outside plant investments by giving them reliable, mass-verified and qualified infrastructure and connectivity databases.




With a global sales network spanning 60 countries, RiT's key customers include major financial institutions, corporations and global telecommunications companies such as: Deutsche Telekom, Alcatel, TELMEX, TELENOR, The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), ING Barings, INVESCO, DIAGEO, Daewoo, and Reuters.

 

RiT is a member of the RAD group, a world leader in communications solutions.

For more information, please visit our website: www.rittech.com.







# # #




Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This release contains forward looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the impact of competitive products and pricing, product demand and market acceptance, new product development, reliance on key strategic alliances, availability of raw materials, the regulatory environment, fluctuations in operating results and other risk and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s filings with the Securities Exchange Commission.




 This press release is available at http://www.rittech.com/ and http://www.portfoliopr.com/.
#### STATE ex rel. Daimon WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1079.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Williams, Daimon; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 01-2427; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-WR-228.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.
#### Anson O. MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-6140.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 8, 2011.

Anson 0. Mitchell, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(4)(A).

LEWIS, HAWKES, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
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 Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harry J. White, Jr., 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:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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.







Date:March 16, 2011/s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.Harry J. White, Jr.Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129491 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129491 COA: 245618 Wayne CC: 99-002114-01 DARIUS WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0123 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2006

Clerk
#### STATE ex rel. Dwayne Lee RODRIGUES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2499.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Rodrigues, Dwayne Lee; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 94-2590; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-1086.

Denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LESLIE LAYTON AND ELMER LAYTON.

February 6, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,336
<SECURITIES>                                    37,120
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,919
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,328
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,477
<PP&E>                                          16,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,563
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,863
<SALES>                                         24,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,565
<CGS>                                            1,251
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   549
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,033
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,468
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,228
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,065
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert E. Mead, 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) 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 result of operations of the
      Company.











Dated:  March
      10, 2009
                  /s/ ROBERT E. MEADRobert
      E. MeadChairman
      and Chief Executive
Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### H. Chowning, Adm’r, etc., v. D. W. Sumner.

(No. 2810.)

Error from Wilbarger. County.

*(Transferred from Austin.)*

Elliott & Sitterly, counsel for plaintiff in error.

No counsel appeared for defendant in error.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 374. *Return of service of citation held insufficient to support judgment by default.*This writ of error is *448prosecuted from a judgment by default rendered against H. Chowning, as administrator, and one Tim Chowning. H. Chowning alone prosecutes the writ. The return of service of citation in the case is as follows: “Came to hand the 4th day of November, A. D. 1886, at — o’clock — M., and executed the 6th day of November, 1S8C, by delivering to H. Chowning, and on the 9th Tim Chowning, the within-named defendant, in person, a true copy of this writ. G. T. Douglas, Sheriff of Wilbarger County, Texas.” *Held:*The return of service is insufficient. When there is more than one defendant the return must show that *each*defendant, in person, was served with a copy of the citation. [Sayles’ Civ. Stat. art. 3219.] The return above quoted does not show that H. Chowning was served with citation. On the contrary, it shows that Tim Chowning only was served. The judgment by default as to H. Chowning cannot therefore be permitted to stand. [Sayles’ Civ. Stat. art. 1225 and note; Holliday v. Steele, 65 Tex. 388; 2 App. C. C. § 269.]

October 31, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        SENATE RESOLUTION 127--RELATIVE TO BORDER CROSSING FEES

  Ms. SNOWE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary:

                              S. Res. 127

       Whereas in the budget of the United States for fiscal year 
     1996 that was submitted to Congress, the President proposed 
     to impose and collect a boarder crossing fee for individuals 
     and vehicles entering the United States;
       Whereas both the Canadian and Mexican governments have 
     expressed opposition to the imposition and collection of such 
     a fee and have raised the possibility of imposing retaliatory 
     border crossing fees of their own;
       Whereas the imposition and collection of such a fee would 
     have adverse effects on tourism and commerce that depend on 
     travel across the borders of the United States;
       Whereas the imposition and collection of such a fee would 
     have such effects without addressing illegal immigration in a 
     meaningful way;
       Whereas on February 22, 1995, the President modified his 
     proposal making the imposition of the new fees voluntary on 
     United States border States (but tied the availability of 
     Federal funds to improve border crossing infrastructure on 
     their willingness to impose such fees); and
       Whereas on May 4, 1995, the President further modified the 
     border crossing fee proposal in immigration control 
     legislation he submitted to Congress setting a $1.50 per car 
     and $.75 per pedestrian fee structure: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     United States Government should not impose or collect a 
     border crossing fee along its borders with Canada and Mexico.
     

                          ____________________
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130572 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130572 

 COA: 266905 

Kent CC: 03-001516-FC 

RYAN RAY PARRISH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0724 

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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
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.                  

###### Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

# Time and Date: 

2 p.m.. Wednesday, September 22, 2010.

# Place: 

1325 G Street NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.

# Status: 

Open.

# Contact Person for More Information: 

                        Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate Secretary, (202) 220-2376,                         *ehall@nw.org.*

# Agenda:

I. Call to Order.

II. Approval of the Minutes.

III. Summary Report of the Corporate Administration Committee.

IV. Summary Report of the Corporate Administration Committee.

V. Approval of the Minutes.

VI. Summary Report of the Finance, Budget and Program Committee.

VII. Approval of the Minutes.

VIII. Approval of the Minutes.

IX. Summary of the Audit Committee.

X. Approval of the Minutes.

XI. Approval of the Revised Minutes.

XII. Board Policy Regarding Elected Officials.

XIII. NeighborWorks Transition Grant_CHC.

XIV. Financial Report.

XV. Corporate Scorecard.

XVI. Chief Executive Officer's Quarterly Management Report.

XVII. Strategic Planning Discussion.

XVIII. Adjournment.

No. 06-2.

Erica Hill,

Assistant Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-24121 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7570-02-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GREGORY WOODS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 62 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 22 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 21
- 00222
- CV IN RE CITY OF DALLAS , Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 19
- 00776
- A MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Osborne Relator’s April 7, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial court’s order compelling relator to produce the per sonal cell phone records of one of its employees. In its October 20, 2021 motion to dismiss the original proceeding, relator advises us that there is no longer a dispute over the production of the personal cell records at issue because the parties have rea ched settlement and the trial court has signed a final order dismissing real party in interest’s claim s with prejudice. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the petition. See In re Evans , 581 S.W.3d 431, 434 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2019, orig. procee ding) (dismissing– 2

–

petition for writ of mandamus because matter had become moot). We also lift the stay issued by our April 8, 2021 order.

210222f.p05 /Leslie Osborne/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
#### Kevin DENNISON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D11-537.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 21, 2011.

Kevin Dennison, DeFuniak Springs, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence in case no. 2009-CF-000227, in the Circuit Court in and for Osceola County, Florida. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

GRIFFIN, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated September 17,
2002 (except for Note 11 as to which the date is September 24, 2002), with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Blue Rhino
Corporation included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
July 31, 2002, in the following:


     - Form S-8 (No. 333-80909) pertaining to the Company's Amended and Restated
       Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-60366) pertaining to the Company's Amended and Restated
       Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-80907) pertaining to the Company's 1994 Stock Incentive
       Plan;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-83262) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock Incentive
       Plan;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-80911) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock Incentive
       Plan;

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-60368) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock Incentive
       Plan, as amended; and

     - Form S-8 (No. 333-94039) pertaining to the Company's Employee Stock
       Purchase Plan.

     - Form S-3 (Nos. 333-96593, 333-86798, 333-69790, 333-46540 and 333-90897)




                                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Greensboro, North Carolina
October 3, 2002
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph J. BRITTON, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1670.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Britton Jr., Joseph J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 93-5014; to the *1260Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 09-WR-558,10-KH-194.

Denied.