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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1820

YONGQING LIN, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals.

Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010 

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Edward T. Giuliano, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony 

West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant 

Director, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Yongqing Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. 

 Lin first challenges the determination that he failed 

to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of 

a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must 

show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 

persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Lin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. We therefore find that substantial evidence supports 

the denial of relief. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lin’s request 

for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for 

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though 

the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is 

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding 

of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 

378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Lin failed to show 

2 
3 

that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher 

standard for withholding of removal. 

 Accordingly, we 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

 ∗

 Lin failed to challenge the denial of his request for 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has 

therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) 

(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief 

results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of 

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
#### STATE ex rel. Austin BERNARD v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1773.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Bernard, Austin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 503387, 502214; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0674.

Denied.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Curtis W. Stoelting, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of RC2 Corporation;





2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and





3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report.








Date:  April 8, 2011


By: /s/ Curtis W. Stoelting


Curtis W. Stoelting


Chief Executive Officer
#### Perry Wakefield v. Tom King.

(No. 3373.)

Appeal from Ellis County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 695. *Judgment cannot be attacked collaterally, when; case stated.*This is a suit to try the right of property to certain cattle. King sued one Ealph, and caused an attachment to issue in the suit which was levied upon the cattle in controversy. In said suit judgment was rendered for King for his debt, and his attachment lien upon the cattle was foreclosed, and the cattle ordered to be sold. Wakefield then claimed the cattle and filed oath and bond under the statute. Upon a trial in justice’s court Wakefield recovered judgment establishing his. right to the cattle. King appealed to the county court,, where the cause was tried by the judge without a jury, and a judgment was rendered for King against Wake-field and the sureties upon his claim bond. In his issues tendered in the case Wakefield attacked the validity of the judgment obtained by King against Ealph, upon the' grounds that it was absolutely void, because Ealph had. not been cited to appear at a regular term of said justice’s court, and because said judgment was not rendered at a regular term of said court. He offered evidence to prove these grounds of objection, which was rejected. *Held,*the rejection of such evidence was not error. The justice’s record showed that citation in the suit had issued for Ealph March 24, 1884, returnable to the April term of said court, and was returned executed April 24, 1884, and the judgment was rendered April 30, 1884. In a collateral proceeding, the only contingency in which the judgment of a domestic court of general jurisdiction, which has assumed to act in a case over which it might by law take jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the person, is when the record shows affirmatively that its jurisdiction did not attach in the particular case. [Guilford v. Love, 49 Tex. 715; Murchison v. White, 54 Tex. 78; Freeman on Judg. §§ 133, 134, 334.]

*612May 13, 1885.

§ 696. *Jurisdiction; question of, how*tried., This question of jurisdiction in the justice’s court must be tried by the record alone, and the presumptions arising therefrom. If the record does not show a want of jurisdiction, it will be, in a collateral proceeding, held to import jurisdiction conclusively. If, however, from the record itself, it affirmatively appears that the court did not have jurisdiction of the subject-matter or the person, in a case when this was also required, or that the jurisdiction had not attached in the particular case, then the question can be raised by objection to the record when offered in evidence in a collateral proceeding; or if a party wishes to rely upon the fact that the judgment is void, he may introduce the record, and thereby show the fact. [52 Tex. 79.]

§ 697. *Justices’ courts are courts of general jurisdiction.*Under the constitution and laws of this state, justices’ coui’ts, with reference to this question of a collateral attack upon a judgment, are treated as courts of general jurisdiction. [Williams v. Ball, 52 Tex. 603.]

Affirmed.
#### Michele SKINNER and Kathryn Skinner v. AGGRESSOR FLEET, LIMITED, Aggressor Fleet Franchising, Inc., Aggressors International, Ltd., Galapagos Aggressor, Galamazonas S.A., Wayne Hasson, Chris Santiago, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London and the Shipowners’ Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) Consolidated with Patricia Anne Skinner v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al. Consolidated with Pauline Peng Skinner, Individually as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert F.L. Skinner, and as Representative, Guardian and Natural Tutrix of her Minor Daughter, Meredith F.K. Skinner v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al. Consolidated with Patricia Anne Skinner v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al. Consolidated with Michelle Skinner And Kathryn Skinner v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al. Consolidated with Pauline Peng Skinner, et al. v. Aggressor Fleet, Limited, et al.

No. 2011-C-0738.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Skinner, Patricia; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 115,837, 115,-839, 115,874; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 CA 1606, 2010 CA 1607.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  as of  January  31,  2000  and  1999  and the
     Consolidated  Statement of  Operations  for the year ended January 31, 2000
     and January 31, 1999, and the periods from February 18, 1997 to January 31,
     2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  be  reference  to such  financial
     statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001035039
<NAME>                        INVU, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1916
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     25,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                61,416
<PP&E>                          299,894
<DEPRECIATION>                  73,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  288,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,812,165
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        288,355
<OTHER-SE>                      (2,338,122)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    288,175
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                15,754
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,369,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (78,987)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,433,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,433,006)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.05)



</TABLE>
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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 28, 2011
    /s/ EUGENE B. SHEPHERD, JR.Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Jeffrey BLOUGH, et al. v. DOWNEY CORPORATION d/b/a M & D Quickstop, ABC Insurance Company, Dr. Mike D. McDaniel, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality, the State of Louisiana through the Department of Environmental Quality, Benton Oil Company, Inc., DEF Insurance Company, GHI Manufacturing Company, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company.

No. 2010-CC-2572.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re General Security Indemnity Co. of Arizona; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 113,512; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1299.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William E.Meyer, Chief Financial Officer of BroadVision, Inc., certifythat:

 

1.    Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofBroadVision, Inc.;

2.    Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)    [intentionallyomitted]

c) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior tothe filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

d)    Disclosed  in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:    August  14, 2003 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |   | /s/    WILLIAM E. MEYER |   |
|                                          |   | William E.  Meyer |
|                                          |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. M.S.L.

No. 2011-KO-0453.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re M.S.L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. CR-122476; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-738.

Denied.
#### Leo POLLARD, Jr., et al. v. ALPHA TECHNICAL, et al. In re Harvey Term Litigation I.

No. 2011-C-1969.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corporation; Shell Offshore Inc.; Shell Oil Company; SWEPI LP; Leo Pollard et al.;— Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, Nos. 2001-8708, 2001-20645; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2010-C-0788, 2010-C-0805.

Denied.
October  29,  1996


Mr.  Paul  Whitman
The  Staubach  Company
6750  LBJ  Freeway,  Suite  1100
Dallas,  Texas  75240

Dear  Paul:

As a follow up to our letter of July 22, 1996, please let this letter serve as
confirmation  that  Two  Galleria  Tower  Limited is willing to extend Jayhawk
Acceptance  Corporation's  lease  (on the eighteenth (18th) floor ONLY) in Two
Galleria  Tower  until  JUNE 6, 1997 (the "Extension Termination Date") at the
following  terms  and  conditions:

SQUARE  FEET:         22,537

COMMENCEMENT:         November  4,  1996

RENTAL RATE:          $18.00 per square foot of Net Rentable Area per year.

EXPENSE  STOP:        $7.34

PARKING:       Tenant shall be granted a total of eighty six (86) regular, ten
(10)  executive  and  four (4) VIP parking spaces at no charge for the term of
the  lease  extension  in  the  Two  Galleria  Tower parking garage. All other
parking  spaces  required  by  Tenant shall be designated by Landlord in other
parking  garages  within  the Galleria complex at a charge of $45.00 per space
per  month  (plus  applicable  sales  tax).

Please  be  advised  that  Landlord  has  received  a letter of intent that it
intends  to  accept  for  the  eighteenth  (18th) floor that Jayhawk currently
occupies.  In  the  event  that  Jayhawk does not vacate the eighteenth (18th)
floor on or before the Extension Termination Date, Jayhawk shall be subject to
all  holdover  penalties (including but not limited to all costs that Landlord
may  incur  due  to  such  holding over) as provided for in Section 6.4 of the
lease  by  and  between  Jayhawk Acceptance Corporation and Two Galleria Tower
Limited.  As we currently are aware, the tenant we are pursuing the lease with
will  incur  holdover  penalties  at

                                     -2-

their  existing  location  (if in fact we do not provide the eighteenth (18th)
floor  space  to them on or before June 7, 1997) in an amount of approximately
$37,000.00  per  month.  However, such amount shall not limit or be binding on
Landlord  if  in fact Landlord pursues damages from Jayhawk as provided for in
Section  6.4  of  the  lease.

Please  call  with  any  questions  or  comments.

Sincerely,

HINES

/s/ Walter J. Zartman
Walter  J.  Zartman
Director  of  Leasing

cc:          Cameron  Chandler
EXHIBIT 23

                   REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To ZMAX Corporation:

We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
consolidated financial statements of ZMAX Corporation (a Delaware corporation)
and  subsidiaries  and have issued our report thereon dated March 5, 1999. Our
audits were made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic  financial
statements  taken as a whole.  The schedule  listed in Item 14,  Valuation and
Qualifying Accounts,  is the responsibility of the Company's management and is
presented  for  purposes  of  complying   with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission's  rules and is not part of the basic  financial  statements.  This
schedule has been subjected to the auditing  procedures  applied in the audits
of the basic financial  statements and, in our opinion,  fairly states, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  data  required to be set forth therein in
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.

                                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Washington, D.C.
March 5, 1999
#### Fernando GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D12-413.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 12, 2012.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 2012.

*1205Walter A. Reynoso, Miami-Dade, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ and FERNANDEZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Hernandez v. State,*61 So.8d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
*No.*14,314.

#### Durham *v.*The State.

Filed Jan. 10, 1889.

*Taxes.*— Returning *False List.*— Penalty.—One who returns a false and fraudulent tax list is liable to the penalty prescribed in section 6339, B. S. 1881, and must he prosecuted in the mode therein prescribed, and not by indictment.

From the Montgomery Circuit Court.

P. *S. Kennedy*and *S. O. Kennedy,*for appellant.

*A. B. Anderson,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.

Elliott, J.

The indictment in this case charges that the defendant gave to the assessor a false and fraudulent tax list, and specifies the particular in which it was false and fraudulent. There was, therefore, some list, and as there was some list, the defendant is liable to the penalty prescribed in section 6339, R. S. 1881, and must be prosecuted in the mode therein prescribed, and not by indictment. He can not be prosecuted by indictment under that section. A defendant may be prosecuted by indictment under section 2150, where there is an unlawful failure or refusal to return any list at all, but not where a list is returned, although it is a false and fraudulent one. *Burgh*v. *State, ex rel.,*108 Ind. 132; *State, ex rel.,*v. *Lauer, ante,*p. 162; *Durham*v. *State, 117*Ind. 477.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to quash the indictment.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trans Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James K. Abcouwer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

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

 

/S/ JAMES K. ABCOUWER

James K. Abcouwer

Chief Executive Officer

August 12, 2009

 

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.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 50249



| | Re: | MakeMusic! Inc.
File No. 0-26192
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentleman:

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic! Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Philip Sean Lafleur,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §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.

November 14, 2002



| | /s/ Philip Sean Lafleur
Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------