alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Imelda TJAHJADIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

Nos. 03-73239, 04-70163.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2005.**

Decided Feb. 23, 2005.

Eugene C. Wong, Esq., Robert G. Ryan, Esq., Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Paul Fiorino, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: D.W. NELSON, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, 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)

**

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

*328MEMORANDUM ***

Imelda Tjahjadin, a native and citizen of Indonesia, claimed persecution on account of her Chinese ethnicity, her sex and her Buddhist religion. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Tjahjadin’s application for asylum based on Indonesia’s history of discrimination and harassment of its ethnic Chinese. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) vacated and reversed the IJ, finding that Tjahjadin failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA also denied Tjahjadin’s later motion to reopen her case. Tjahjadin petitions for review of the BIA’s rulings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Tjahjadin’s consolidated petitions for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Tjahjadin did not suffer past persecution on account of her Chinese ethnicity, sex or religion. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003); *Gafoor v. INS,*231 F.3d 645, 650-51 (9th Cir.2000). Moreover, the evidence does not compel a finding that Tjahjadin has a well-founded fear of persecution. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). Although the evidence demonstrates that the ethnic Chinese are a significantly disfavored group in Indonesia, Tjahjadin has not shown any particularized individual risk. *Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, the BIA did not err when it found that she failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Tjahjadin’s motion to reopen because the new information she offered in support of her motion did not demonstrate that she has a particularized risk of persecution if she were to return to Indonesia. *See Konstantinova v. INS,*195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999).

PETITIONS 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,886
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                       193
<INVENTORY>                                      4,146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,186
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      81
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,649
<SALES>                                         14,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,241
<CGS>                                           12,143
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   103
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    530
<INCOME-TAX>                                       197
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       333
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        
 
</TABLE>
----

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-100329 on Form S-8 of our report (which audit report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to ourconsideration of internal control over financial reporting and also includes aseparate report titled "Comments by Independent Registered Chartered Accountantson Canada – United States of America Reporting Difference" referring toconditions and events that cast substantial doubt on the Company's ability tocontinue as a going concern) dated March 29, 2007 on the consolidated financialstatements of Zi Corporation appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ZiCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP                                   

Deloitte & Touche LLP Independent Registered Chartered Accountants Calgary, Canada April 2, 2007 

----
423 A.2d 1314

#### Commonwealth v. Stotler, Appellant.

Submitted March 23, 1979.

Taylor P. Andrews, Public Defender, for appellant; Edgar B. Bayley, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shrell Harris,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04190-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9204 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
#### John J. Hayden et al *v.*Joseph E. Temple and Barker.

Partnership — Partnership and Individual Debts — Application of Payment.

A creditor who holds notes against a party individually, and against a firm of which he is a member, may appropriate a remitance, in the absence of directions, to apply to the firm account, to the payment of the individual indebtedness.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 25, 1869.

*Haz. &*Winn, *for appellants.*

*Hazlerigg &*Winn, *for appellants.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

As a party to - the issue and liable for costs Hayden was an incompetent witness, and the circuit court did not err in so deciding.

Without his testimony there is no difficulty in the case, as he owed on his individual acount more than the amount of the check transmitted to the appellees without direction to appropriate it to the partnership note, they had a legal right to apply the amount to his individual notes, as they did. And that right was fortified by the note enclosing the check. The check purported to be his individually, and the note was also in his individual name without any illusion to the partnership, or its money or debt.

The judgment is apparently right and is therefore *affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 495 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 495

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double the maximum 
benefit under the special estate tax valuation rules for certain farm, 
                          etc., real property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 1997

  Mr. Thomas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double the maximum 
benefit under the special estate tax valuation rules for certain farm, 
                          etc., real property.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DOUBLING OF MAXIMUM BENEFIT UNDER SPECIAL ESTATE TAX 
              VALUATION RULES FOR CERTAIN FARM, ETC., REAL PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 2032A(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on aggregate reduction in 
fair market value) is amended by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting 
``$1,500,000''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to decedents dying after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:15-mj-01697-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01697-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01697-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 16, 2010 

1209 

Order 

 

December 16, 2010 

141761 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141761 

 COA: 289071 

Gladwin CC: 08-003915-FH 

PAUL ALAN FARQUHARSON, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of People v Dowdy (Docket No. 140603) is pending on appeal before this Court and 

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"The Mercury 13","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zT9SfxlFUA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/mercury-13\/\">The Mercury 13<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/mercury-13\/embed\/#?secret=zT9SfxlFUA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“The Mercury 13” — NASA\" data-secret=\"zT9SfxlFUA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/162061main_image_feature_691_ys_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":421}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,237
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685
<INVENTORY>                                     24,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,621
<PP&E>                                          44,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,723
<BONDS>                                          8,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,616
<SALES>                                         81,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,284
<CGS>                                           59,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   542
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        77
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,819)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    139
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,680)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.13)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allan Randall,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-18-00044-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: January 12, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9624 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>      5 
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 AND STATEMENT
               OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
               QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                     27,130
<SECURITIES>                               41,843
<RECEIVABLES>                               3,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           74,807
<PP&E>                                      5,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             82,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       5,624
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                       14
<OTHER-SE>                                 74,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               82,242
<SALES>                                    14,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           14,435
<CGS>                                       8,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               8,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           22,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,396)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   36
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,432)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,432)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              ($1.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              ($1.15)

         

</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 Quarterly Report of eMagin Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q /A for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew G. Sculley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:  October 7, 2011
By:
/s/ Andrew G. SculleyAndrew G. SculleyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Erik R. Martinez, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Virbac Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: April 29, 2005 By:  /s/Erik R. Martinez    Erik R. Martinez    President and Chief Executive Officer
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 

Josh N. Perry, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

IQ Data International Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02024-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 The Court having received the parties' Stipulation to Dismiss Defendant I.Q. Data 

International, Inc., with Prejudice (Doc. 43), 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing this action as to Defendant I.Q. Data 

International, Inc., with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Dated this 29th day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 44 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 1