alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ruben CAMACHO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73128, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 20, 2004.

Gary Finn, Attorney at Law, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Offi*610cer, Office of the District, Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jennifer A. Parker, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Ruben Camacho Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“I J”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where the BIA reviews the IJ’s decision de novo, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted. *See Shah v. INS,*220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2000). We review de novo due process challenges, *Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft,*345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Assuming *arguendo*that the IJ erred in denying Camacho Garcia a continuance when his counsel failed to appear at his hearing, and that the counsel’s failure to appear constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA properly determined that Camacho Garcia was not prejudiced, because his daughter took the stand and testified to the hardship removal would cause. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 901-03 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Camacho Garcia fails to demonstrate how the alleged violation affected the outcome of the proceedings. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 749-50 (9th Cir.2004), Camacho Garcia’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for a stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

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.
#### J. I. Emerine & Wife *v.*W. H. Adams.

Champerty and Maintenance.

The purchase of Adams was not champertous because Rachel Visage did not have actual possession of the two tracts of land at the time the conveyance was made.

Adverse Possession — Eider and Junior Patentees — Statute of Limitation.

There is no better established rule than that the junior patentee can not claim' possession as against the elder to any greater extent than he may actually hold and the statute of limitation does not begin to run until actual occupancy.

APPEAL PROM LIVINGSTON COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.

March 25, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay.

The appellants do not insist that the instructions given by the common pleas judge upon the trial of this cause were calculated to prejudice their substantial rights, but rely for a reversal of his judgment upon the fact that the finding of the jury was palpably against the weight of the testimony.

A careful consideration of the evidence satisfies us that the two tracts, the one of 60 and the other of SO acres, do not lie wholly within the boundaries of the conveyance from Lunder to Adams, but that a portion of each of said tracts is embraced within such boundaries is proved beyond cavil.

The modified judgment of November 26, 1870, recognizes these facts, and removes any ground of complaint which appellants may have had, on account of the judgment as originally entered.

The purchase of Adams was not champertous, Rachel Visage did not have actual possession of the two tracts of land in controversy at the time the conveyance was made.

The fact that she lived upon and held possession of her home farm of 200 acres, adjoining the land in controversy, did not extend' her possession over the entries made within the boundaries of the lands patented to the Bullit Co.

There is no better established rule than that the junior patentee can not claim possession as against the elder, to any greater extent than he may actually hold.

*84*Greer, for appellants.*

*Bush & Bush, for appellees.*

No actual entry was ever made 'by Emerine and wife or those under whom they claim, upon the land's covered by the junior patents until 1863, more than thirteen years after the conveyance from Lunder to Adams.

For the same reason the statute of limitation did not begin to run until the actual occupancy by Emerine and' wife was begun.

From the facts proved it is a matter of serious doubt whether these appellants in good faith believed themselves to be the owners of the lands in contest or rather that they were not aware of the claim of Adams’ heirs, for which reason even if the lost patent be not void, we would not be inclined to disturb the action of the judge of the common pleas court as to rents and improvements.

Feeling assured that appellants will be deprived of none of their rights by the enforcement of the judgment appealed from, we are constrained to affirm it.
As of: 9/16/21 10:08 AM 

Received: September 14, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. ktk-7cpe-ltbz 

Comments Due: September 15, 2021 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: NIST-2021-0004 

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Comment On: NIST-2021-0004-0001 

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Document: NIST-2021-0004-DRAFT-0072 

Comment on FR Doc # 2021-1617 6 

Submitter Information 

Name: Eugene Neelou Alex Polyakov, Adversa AI 

Address: United States, 

Email: 

General Comment 

Comments are provided by Eugene Neelou and Alex Polyakov, experts in cybersecurity, artificial 

intelligence, and risk management. Both are founders of Adversa.AI, a world-class Israeli startup on a 

mission to increase trust in AI systems. 

Recently, Adversa.AI has released the unique report called "The Road to Secure and Trusted AI: The 

Decade of AI Security Challenges" that demonstrates the progress toward AI trustworthiness over the 

past 10 years across academia, government, and industry. 

Besides many insights and infographics, the Adversa Report has introduced 2 essential resources for the 

development of the AI Risk Management Framework: 

1. The Map of Trustworthy AI covers all principles and requirements for trusted AI.

2. The Lifecycle for Secure AI describes activities for all security stages for AI systems.

Please find our comments first and the mentioned resources in the end. 

Attachments 

Adversa-Comments-for-NIST-AI-Risk-Management-Framework
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 D0 17 3 . MI LTON MI TCHELL v . THE STATE.

In 1 9 8 4, M i l to n M i t ch el l p led g u il t y an d was fo u n d g u i l t y o f m u l t i p l e o ffen s e

i n m u l t ip l e cas es

. O n No v em ber 1

, 2 01 8

, M i tch el l fi l ed t h is p ro se ap p li cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal seek i n g rev i ew o f t h ree t ri al co u rt o rd ers - an o rd er d is m i s s i n g

h i s m o t i on t o s et as i d e v o i d ju d g m en t s

, an o rd er d en y in g h i s ex t rao rd i n ary m o t i o n fo r

n ew t ri al

, an d an o rd er d en y i n g h i s m o t i o n fo r o u t-o f-t i m e ap p eal

. Th e o rd ers

at t ach ed to t h e ap p l i cat io n were s i g n ed o n Au g u st 1 4

, 2 0 1 8 an d A u g u s t 1 6

, 2 0 1 8

, b ut

were n o t s t am

p ed “ fi l ed ” as req u i red by Co u rt o f A p p e al s Ru l e 3 1 (e). A s t am p ed

“ fi l ed ” co p y i s req u i red i n o r d e r f o r t h is Co u rt t o as cert ai n t h at t h e ap p l icat i o n was

fi led wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f t h e o rd er b ei n g ch al l en g ed

, wh i ch i s a j u ri s d i ct i o n al

p rereq u i s i t e. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ) (ap p l i cat i o n m u s t b e fi led wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f t h e

en t ry o f t h e ord er ap peal ed ); Bo yl e v. S t a t e

, 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4

, 7 3 4 ( 3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 )

(1 9 8 9) (OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 req u i rem en t s are ju ri s d i ct i o nal ).

On Oct o ber 6

, 2 0 1 8

, t hi s Co u rt d i rect ed M i t ch el l to s u p p l em en t th e ap p l i cat i o n

wi t h s t am p ed “ fi l ed ” co p i es o f t h e o rd ers s o u g h t t o be ap p eal ed wi t h i n 1 0 d ay s o f t h e

Oct o b er 6 o rd er. W e n o ted t h at fai l u re t o co m p l y wi t h t h i s d irect i v e wo u l d res u l t in

d i s m i s s al o f h i s ap p l i cat i o n

. Becau s e m o re t h an 1 0 d ay s h av e p as s ed s i n ce we i s s u ed

t h e Oct o b er 6 o rd er an d M i t ch el l h as fai l ed to fi l e s t am p ed “ fi l ed ” co p i es o f t h e

o rd ers , h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. November 28, 2018C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/28/2018
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 373 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 17, 1998.
Whereas Sir Ketumile Masire has been involved in politics in his country since 
        he co-founded the Bechuanaland Democratic Party (later the Botswana 
        Democratic Party) with Seretse Khama in 1962;
Whereas Sir Ketumile Masire was elected to Botswana's first Parliament in 1965, 
        later became Vice President under President Seretse Khama, and succeeded 
        President Khama as President upon his death in 1980;
Whereas under President Masire's administration Botswana has maintained a 
        successful multiparty constitutional democracy with regular free and 
        fair elections;
Whereas President Masire plans to retire from the presidency on March 31, 1998;
Whereas the Government of Botswana has worked constructively with the 
        Organization of African Unity, the Southern African Development 
        Community, and other organizations to promote democracy in Africa;
Whereas Botswana is a long standing friend of the United States and was selected 
        as the site of a major Voice of America radio relay station because of 
        its stability; and
Whereas President Clinton plans to enhance United States relations with Botswana 
        through an upcoming official visit to Botswana: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the people of Botswana for their commitment to 
        democracy;
            (2) commends Sir Ketumile Masire for his long and distinguished 
        service to his country and the cause of democracy in Africa;
            (3) calls on President Masire's successor to pursue the course set 
        by President Masire by maintaining a democratic Botswana;
            (4) calls on the Government of Botswana to continue playing a 
        positive role in African and world affairs; and
            (5) encourages the Government of Botswana to continue promoting 
        peace, democracy, respect for human rights, and economic reform in 
        Africa.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**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 Cogent, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ming Hsieh, 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 to myknowledge: 

 

1. The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2. That the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

 

This certification has not been,and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Date: March 3, 2008
#### Moses Yowells, Admr., *v.*John Yowell, Admr.

Fraudulent Conveyance — Operates as an Assignment for Benefit of Creditors.

The sale of the deceased’s estate after his death shows that it was insufficient, at that time, to' pay his debts, but it does not necessarily follow that he was unable to pay them at the time he executed the mortgage.

APPEAL FROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT.

January 3, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

There is no direct proof in the record to the effect that the mortgage to Leroy Yowell was executed by the deceased in contemplation of insolvency.

The sale of his estate after his death shows that it was insufficient at that time to pay his debts, but it does not necessarily follow, that he was unable to pay them bn the 26th of *322April, 1869, when the mortgage was executed. His will, which was written on the same day, shows very satisfactorily that he believed he was then able to pay all he owed and secure to his wife and children a home. We do not think appellant made out such a state of case as would have authorized the chancellor to hold that the mortgage to Leroy Yowell, operated as an assignment of all the estate of the grantor for the benefit of all of his creditors.

*Mitchell, for appellant*

*J. R. Robinson, Montague, for appellee.*

Judgment affirmed.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00621- CV Te xa s D e par tm e ntof Ins ur anc e , D ivi sio n of W or ke r s’ Co m pe nsa ti on, App e lla nt v. Insu rance C ouncil of

Texas, ServiceLloyd s Insu rance C om pany, and O ld Repub lic Ge neral Insurance Gr oup, Ap pellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN501097 , HO NORAB LE DARLENE B Y RNE, JUDGE P RESIDING

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant filed a

n agree d motion to dismiss this interlocutory appea l. We gr ant the mot ion and dis mis s th is a

pp e a l.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P uryear and Waldrop Dismissed on Ag ree d Motion Filed: F ebrua

ry 10, 2006
---

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



---



FORM 10-Q/A



---



Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



For
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2002



Commission
File Number 000-24051



---



UNITED PANAM FINANCIAL CORP.

(Exact
name of Registrant as specified in its charter)



---



|                                                               |  |                                        
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|California                                                     |  | 95-3211687                             
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |  | (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)



3990 Westerly Place,
Suite 200

Newport Beach, CA 92660

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)



(949) 224-1917

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)



---



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No ̈



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act).    Yes ̈No  x



The number of shares outstanding of the Registrants Common Stock as of May 1, 2002 was
15,571,400 shares.



---



---

EXPLANATORY NOTE



This quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A amends our original quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2002
as of the date of filing the original Form 10-Q on May 10, 2002. We are amending the original quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2002 to correct and restate the consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2002.
The restated numbers for the quarter ended March 31, 2002 and a further explanation about the restatements are included in the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003, which was filed on September 3, 2004.



---

SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto
duly authorized.



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: October 26, 2004 |  | United PanAm Financial Corp.         
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Ray Thousand                     
|                       |  | Ray Thousand                         
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                       |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68281-68282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26906]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
USC, as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis 
Panel; Conflicts R01/R21/K01.
    Date: December 10, 2014.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Library of Medicine, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 
301, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Zoe E. Huang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, NIH, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, 301-594-4937, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#503825313e372a103d31393c7e3e39387e373f26"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c44594d424b566c414d454002424544024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 68282]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, 
Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 7, 2014.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of the Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-26906 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 7, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1740

Lower Tribunal No. 14-23595-CA-20

________________



### Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company

,

Appellant,

vs.



### Alfredo Torralbas

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Hon. William L.

Thomas

, Judge.

Koch Parafinczuk & Wolf, P.A., and Jason B. Wolf, Justin R. Parafinczuk,

and Coleen M. Crocco (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

The Deiner Firm, P.A., and Eric Deiner

, for appellee.

Before WELLS, SHEPHERD, and LOGUE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company appeals an order determining Alfredo

Torralbas’ entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs. An order that merely

determines entitlement to attorney’s fees without actually awarding an amount of

fees is not final and, therefore, not appealable. Reid v. Estate of Sonder

, 63 So. 3d

7, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“It is well established that an order granting entitlement

to fees is a non-final, non-appealable order until the amount of the fee is set.”).

While the order under appeal determines Torralbas’ entitlement, it does not set the

amount of the fees and costs. This Court therefore lacks appellate jurisdiction to

review the order.

Dismissed.

2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 11, 2014

NO. 03-14-00074-CV

L. J. G., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on January 17, 2014. Appellant has

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

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

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
ACCEPTED 14-14-00807-cv FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/26/2015 3:54:27 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
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 Quarterly Report of Cavalry Bancorp, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hillard C. Gardner, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.
 
 
 
 Date: August 8, 2003
byHillard C. GardnerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)