alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Roy Warden, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Phyllis Russell, individually and in her 

official capacity, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 4: 15-CV-361-TUC-JAS 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Rateau that recommends granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

(Doc. 17) and Motion to Remand (Doc. 15). A review of the record reflects that the 

parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to 

file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new 

evidence. 

 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Rateau’s 

recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that 

portions of a report and recommendation to which objections have not been filed are 

reviewed for clear error); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 (1) Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is accepted 

and adopted. 

Case 4:15-cv-00361-JAS-JR Document 25 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 17) and Motion to Remand (Doc. 15) are 

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the file in this case and notify the 

Pima County Superior Court that the case has been remanded. 

 Dated this 20th day of January, 2016. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00361-JAS-JR Document 25 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2
#### R. M. Thompson *v.*W. R. Palmer.

New Trial — Default Judgment — Petition—Petition for a New Trial — Reason for not Defending Original Suit.

In an action for a new trial the petition must state facts showing some legal reason why defense was not made to the original suit, nor is the fact that the judgment was reversably erroneous any legal reason why new trial should he granted, the remedy being by appeal.

APPEAL FROM M'CCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 19, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Appellee haying recovered judgment by default against appellant as part owner of the steamer Green for loss of certain goods, which this court has just reversed, it being heard with this case, filed a petition for a new trial after the time had elapsed in the court below, averring he had not been served with process, notwithstanding the sheriff’s return of execution; also averring that he.was not- part owner of said boat at the time of the loss of the goods.

The judgment dismissing this proceeding recites that the parties appeared by attorney and the court being sufficiently advised adjudged that the plaintiff take nothing by his petition; this judgment indicates that evidence was heard rather than that it was not, at least it does not preclude the fact of evidence being heard, and in the absence of a bill of exceptions, certifying it, we cannot say the court erred.

Nor is this legal status altered by a single deposition copied in the record by the clerk without being certified by the court.

If this was an equity instead of an ordinary action and to be tested on the evidence it would be insufficient, for it does not in the slightest degree disprove the sheriff’s return, but only slightly indicates that possibly Thompson was not a joint owner when the goods were lost. If this had been clearly made out it would have been insufficient unless he had also shown some legal reason why *387he did not defend the original suit, nor is the fact that it was reversably erroneous any legal reason for this proceeding, the remedy being by appeal to this court.

Bloomfield, *for appellant.*

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed*without damages, no supersedeas appearing.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Richard L. Park, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Local Financial Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and we have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [intentionally omitted];(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based
on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls. Date: May 7, 2004
    /s/ Richard L. ParkRichard L. ParkChief Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 15, 2019

NO. 03

- 19

- 00060

- CV

Uvalde County Appraisal District, Appellant

v.

Albert M. Walker, Jr. d/b/a The Law Firm of Albert M. Walker, Jr.; and William A. Kessler, Jr. d/b /a The Law Firm of Kessler & Kessler, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND TRIANA

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on December 19, 2018. Appellant

has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the moti on, the Court agrees that

the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal

.

A ppellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 16, 2014.

# PLACE: 

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (entry from F Street entrance).

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Newmont USA Limited,*                         Docket Nos. WEST 2010-652-RM, et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred by ruling that a non-working area where a fan was turned off is an unventilated area that must be sealed or barricaded.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: 

Sarah Stewart (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2014-24115 Filed 10-6-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
#### Commonwealth *v.*Mary Sloan.

Bail Bond — Frofeiture—Pardon of Principal — Defense.

A pardon granted to the principal, by the Executive of the State, before trial is a good defense on trial of a forfeited bail bond.

APPEAL FROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1868.

Lacy, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Whether the pardon was granted by the Governor of the Commonwealth to Andrew Stevens, the principal in the bail bond before or after the forfeiture does not appear, there is no bill of exceptions making the pardon a part of the record.

But even if it was after the forfeiture, this court has heretofore held that a pardon granted by the executive of the state to the principal before trial for a forfeited bail bond constituted a good defense. Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
**Exhibit
      32**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




This
      certification is given by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of Cowlitz Bancorporation (the "Registrant") pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Each of the undersigned hereby
      certifies, with respect to the Registrant's quarterly report of Form 10-Q for
      the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), 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.




/s/
                Richard J. FitzpatrickRichard
                J. FitzpatrickChief
                Executive OfficerCowlitz
                Bancorporation/s/
                Gerald L. BrickeyGerald
                L. BrickeyChief
                Financial OfficerCowlitz
                Bancorporation




November
      14, 2008
Exhibit 3.1



CENTRAL EUROPEAN DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION



CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT



OF



CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION



The undersigned President and Secretary of Central European Distribution Corporation do hereby certify as follows:



1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) is Central European Distribution Corporation.



2. The Corporation desires to increase its authorized shares from 21.0
million to 41.0 million, 40.0 million of which shares shall be shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, and 1.0 million of which shall be shares of preferred stock, par value $.01 per share.



3. The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the
Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on September 4, 1997, and is amended by deleting Article 4.1 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:



4.1 Authorized Shares



The total number of shares of all classes of stock that the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 41.0 million of which 40.0
million shall be Common Stock, having a par value of $.01 per share (Common Stock), and 1.0 million shall be Preferred Stock, having a par value of $.01 per share (Preferred Stock).



The remaining paragraphs of Article 4 shall remain unchanged.



4. The amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation herein certified has
been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has duly caused its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed and this Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of
Incorporation to be signed by its President and Secretary as of the 3rd day of May 2004.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Attest:               |  |  |  |                        
|                      |  | 
|/s/    James Archbold |  |  |  | /s/    William V. Carey
|James Archbold        |  |  |  | William V. Carey       
|Secretary             |  |  |  | President              
|                      |  | 
|[SEAL]                |  |  |  |
#### Elder *v.*Lasswell and Others.

A debt due by *Jl.*and *B.*to *C.*cannot be set off, either at law or in equity, against a debt due'by *C. to’jA.*alone.

There is no difference, on the subject of set-off, between Courts of law and equity: the rule is the same in both Courts. ' ■ ,

ERROR to the Pern/'Circuit Court.

*Saturday, November*20.

Blackford, J.

Bill in chancery by *Elder*against *Lasswell, Comstock, Chenault,*and *Burke.*The substance of the bill is, that the complainant and one *Arnold Elder,*since deceased, executed their note to *Lasswell*for 550 bushels of corn;—that in 1896, before this note became due, they obtained from *Chenault*and *Burke,*by assignment, a sealed note, executed by *Lasswell*and one *Ephraim Comstock*for 1,020 dollars and 82 cents, due on the 1st of *March,*1820;—that *Lasswell*refused to permit this note to *be set*off against the one he *held for the*corn, and has obtained a judgment against the complainant for 88 dollars, in a suit at law on the last-mentioned note. The bill further states that both *Lasswell*and *Comstock*are insolvent; and that their joint note could not be set off by the complainant, in the action at law against him on the note given to *Lass-well*alone. The prayer of the bill is, that the judgment at law be enjoined, and the set-off allowed. A written objection in the following words was filed to the bill, viz. “The defendant, *Lasswell,*now moves the Court here, that the above cause be dismissed for want of apparent equity; and that the said defendant be allowed his costs expended in that behalf. *Crawford,*Sol.” The Circuit Court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill, with costs and damages.

The complainant’s object is to set off his joint noté on *Lass-'well*and *Comstock,*against *LasswelVs*judgment on a note exe*350cuted to him alone by the complainant. It is admitted that the set-off is not admissible at law; but it is contended that it may be received in equity. This distinction, relied on by the complainant, between Courts of law and equity, on the subject of set-off, does not exist. The rule is the same in both Courts. This precise point is settled in the case of *Dale and others*v. *Cooke,*4 Johns. C. R. 11. The bill cannot be sustained.

*Dewey*and Hall, for the plaintiff

Crawford, for the defendants,

There is an informality in the manner in which -the bill was objected to. The objection, however, was in writing and makes a part of the record. It is in substance a demurrer.

The decree of the Circuit Court against the complainant is correct, and must be affirmed.

*Per*Curiam.

The decree is affirmed. To be certified, &c« (1).

(1)

 A te-heanng was gianted in this cause; but it was not submitted again to tha Court. Jt was dismissed by agreement of the parties. The set-off was inadmissible. *M’Kinney*v. *Bellows, May*term, 1832.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
           
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         272,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  207,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,651)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               510,889
<PP&E>                                          31,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,002,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          177,274
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                     817,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,002,112
<SALES>                                        252,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               252,324
<CGS>                                          197,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 239 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,376
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,212
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
              

</TABLE>
#### Jorge FLORES-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-72879.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.**

Decided Feb. 22, 2005.

James G. Roche, Law Offices of James G. Roche, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David Dauenheimer, Ronald N. Ohata, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Jorge Flores-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal *799proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, *Kamalthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA adopted the IJ’s finding that Flores-Torres’ evidence regarding his daughter’s injury was insufficient to establish exceptional circumstances to excuse his late appearance, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Celis-Castellano,*298 F.3d at 892 (explaining that the agency’s factual finding “must stand unless the record *compels*reversal”) (emphasis in original).

Contrary to Flores-Torres’ contention, the BIA gave individualized consideration to his motion by adopting the IJ’s decision. *See Alaelua v. INS,*45 F.3d 1379, 1381-82 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Flores-Torres’ motion to reopen.

Flores-Torres’ second motion for an ex-tentsion of time to file a reply brief is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED** **ACCOUNTANTS**
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-100329on Form S-8 of our reports (which audit report expresses and
unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial statements and includes
comments by Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canada-United States
of America Reporting Differences stating that there has been a restatement of
the consolidated financial statements as described in notes 2 and 16 and stating
that there are changes in accounting principles that have a material effect on
the comparability of the consolidated financial statements) dated March 11, 2005
on the consolidated financial statements of Zi Corporation appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Zi Corporation for the year ended December
31, 2004.
  
 
 
 
 Independent
Registered Chartered Accountants
  Calgary,
Alberta, Canada
 March 30,
2005