alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NUMBER 13 - 11 - 006 95 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JOHN BEAMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE BRIDGES AT MISSION , A ppellant ,
v. CONSTELLATION NEW ENERGY, INC., A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPIN ION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, John Beaman, Individually and d/b/a The Bridges at Mission , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL

- 11

- 2047

- A . The parties have filed a n agreed motion for voluntary dismissal of appeal on grounds that all matters in controversy between them in2

this cause have been fully compromised and settled. The parties request that this Court
dismiss this appeal

. The Court, having considered the documents on file and the agreed motion to dismiss , is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a).
The agreed motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED

. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring

same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismi ssed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 2nd day of February , 201 2

.
!"#$ %&'()$ *+,,)+-!.)(/0!#1(/".&+1)!2+1""3)+/03)$ *""3)+/+'4"/,3),)!+"5$ 6!)'$  7")"11)$ !"/87""89!,$ 

:);<%&'()$ #,.3+%&'()$= %3

47!"'>!+!+")&-"!3+5 ?'!#*11)$ *)/3&-"!+2#1-3&+#!+".!-@ -"!+2#3-#-3&+#!+".!-@ ''()30".-3&)"A")!#()@ ;0".!-)-.")!#BC!##/3&-"".")!#""3)+/@ ;0".!!-)!'!+#-B-.-D/3&)""&E F"!+13&+# *,,3!+"13&+# ;0,,3!+"1-3&+#G)/3& 61)#<0+1) H*I+#*""3)+/ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ;+3)1)"3,,)(03)".!K3&)"+""3)+/'&"!".)(''()!+2331"+1!+230".!K3&)"A 2+)#()3)(2)+"1#L"3,,)MNOPQRSTRU,)3L!1103)(/#3-#)&#V>EWX".)3&2.V>EWYE ;1-#)&+1),+#"/30,)Z&)/"."".03)23!+2!")&+1-3))-"E[+1)XV\E]EK^_W`YaB".! ""'+"&+1),)Z&)/.".'03)-+100-"C3)+""'+"'1&+1)3".E ?b-&"13+ *""3)+/!2+"&)$784[#-")3+!-!2+"&)!0".,,)+-03)'!0!#1#-")3+!-##/E5 FL!1V8W8XcWd

efghijkljmlefnopmfqrsht utkvwnxykzk{wzkmf |i}~nv~ hfwskfomfq pksknhqnwtztkfhtmfwqmfskzyyu |oywfnwqzhtvhfrh wvhtmtu|~| }~| |~}~~

nksknhqonms

hzhsht|}~}~



and through their guardian, Porchia Heidelberg, A.O., a minor, by and through his guardian, Jasmin Beverly, and M.P., 

a minor, by and through her guardian, Requeenis Gilder in case no. 3:20-cv-03185 (N.D. Ca.)

Plaintiffs D.M. and A.M., minors, by

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 73 Filed: 09/14/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1597
#### Kirkbride et al., Exrs., Appellees, *v.*Hickok et al., Appellees; Toledo Society et al., Appellants.

(No. 4344

Decided February 7, 1949.)

*Messrs. Kirkbride.*Cole, *Frease é Mittendnrf,*for appellees Walter G. Kirkbride and others, executors.

*331
      *Messrs. Welles, Kelsey, Fuller, Cobourn & Harrington,*for appellees Daisy S. Hickok and others.

*Mr. Leroy E. Eastman, Mr. Harry Levison, Mr. Henry R. Bloch, Rlr. Bert P. Hebenstreit, Mr. Richard D. Logan, Mr. Josiah T. Herbert*and *Rlr. John R. Eastman,*committee of counsel, for appellants.

Fess, J.

Appellees moved to dismiss an appeal on questions of law and fact from a judgment of the Probate Court construing a will. The motion is based upon the contention that the action does not involve the validity or construction of the terms of a trust and, therefore, the appeal presents only a question of law. *Clark*v. Clark, 110 Ohio St., 644, 144 N. E., 743; *Crowley, Admr.,*v. *Crowley,*124 Ohio St., 454, 179 N. E., 360.

That portion of the judgment below from which an appeal is taken relates to a finding and conclusion that the provisions of the will bequeathing certain gifts to charities are invalid by reason of the fact that the will was executed within one year prior to testator’s death. Appellees contend that this question does not involve the construction of the- trust, and only questions, of law are involved in the appeal.

An examination of the .petition discloses that the executors asked the advice and instructions of the court concerning numerous questions relating to the rights of various persons as income beneficiaries of the trust, the rights, powers and duties of the executors as well as the trustees in the administration of and distributions from the trust, and the rights and powers of the trustees to determine t.he persons entitled to receive the trust income. It is apparent that the executors as well as the trustees (who intervened) asked advice and instruction concerning matters in*332volving the trust which presented equitable issues for determination by the Probate Court.

For the purpose of deciding the motion, it is unnecessary for this court to determine whether the question of the validity of these charitable gifts presents a question of law or one in equity. The instruction sought with respect to that particular question was included with a number of instructions relating to the administration of the trust. Since the petition, to a major extent, calls for the determination-of equitable questions, the action was and remains one-in chancery.

“A court of equity having jurisdiction of a case will retain jurisdiction of all issues therein, even-though part of them are legal, and administer full relief, both legal and equitable, so far as it pertains to-the same transaction or subject matter.” *Clark*v. Clark, *supra,*656.

Even though the appeal may call for the determination only of questions of law, the filing of the notice-of appeal on questions of law and fact in a chancery case below appeals the entire case.

The motion is, therefore, overruled.

*Motion*overruled.

Conn, P. J., and Carpenter, J., concur.
#### Isabel Rigoberto CASTILLO GIRON, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-72684.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 15, 2004.

Isabel Rigoberto Castillo Giron, 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, San Francisco, CA, Luis E. Perez,Linda S. Wendtland, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, ALARCÓN, 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**

Isabel Rigoberto Castillo Giron, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s order granting voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review.

Castillo Giron contends that because of ineffective assistance of counsel he unwittingly withdrew his application for asylum, withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief, and waived appeal. We lack jurisdiction to review these contentions because Castillo Giron failed to raise these issues before the BIA and administrative exhaustion is required for alleged errors that the administrative tribunal could remedy. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 749-50 (9th Cir.2004), Castillo Giron’s timely motion to stay removal included a timely request to stay voluntary departure. Because the motion to stay removal was granted, 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 DISMISSED.

**

 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.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 60

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 1997

Mr. STUMP (for himself and Mr. EVANS) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on

Veterans’ Affairs in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Veterans’ Af4 fairs (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries,

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $5,744,757 for the One Hundred

9 Fifth Congress.
2

•HRES 60 IH

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $2,744,855 shall be available

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

5 noon on January 3, 1997, and ending immediately

6 before noon on January 3, 1998; and

7 (2) not more than $2,999,902 shall be available

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

9 noon on January 3, 1998, and ending immediately

10 before noon on January 3, 1999.

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

15 directed by the Committee on House Oversight.

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

19 the Committee on House Oversight.

Æ
# U nit ed Sta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 09-1279 THE SHELL COMPANY (PUERTO RICO) LIMITED, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v . LOS FRAILES SERVICE STATION, INC., Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on May 5, 2010, is amended as follows: On the cover sheet replace "Raul M. Arias-Marxuach with whom Nannette Berríos Haddock, Frank LaFontaine, and McConnell V a l d es LLC were on brief for appellee." with "Nan n e tte Berríos Haddock with whom Raul M. A r ias-Marxuach, Frank LaFontaine,and McConnell Valdes LLC were on brief for appellee." On page 1, line 1, "Petroleum Practices Marketing" should be replaced with "Petroleum Marketing Practices". On page 23, line 24, "sublease of the station from LFSS" should be replaced with "sublease of the station from Shell". On page 19, line 19, "proximity does not does not" should be replaced with "proximity does not".
Mary Theofa

Brian Sta

Specific hardware and software products identified in this report were used in order to perform the evaluations described. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products and equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose
Height

10 Print Height/Angle

Accessibility Symbo

Fa

Cap

Taking a good picture is 
What do you want me to 
Some could not reach the 
Where to place my fingers
Show me what to do
So what do these lights me
What will we see in the new 
Thank you

Mary Theofanos: maryt@nist.gov

Brian Stanton: brian.stanton@nist.gov

Usability and Biometrics
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350**








In
      connection with the annual report on Form 10K-SB of Rotoblock Corporation
      (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the Report), I, Matthias Heinze, Chief Executive Officer, hereby
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      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 results of operations of Registrant.










Date:
      July 28,
      2007 **ROTOBLOCK
      CORPORATION**





/s/
      Matthias Heinze


By:
      Matthias Heinze, President, Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
#### Brian B. KEWO; Fransiscus Xaverius Boyke Kewo, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73877.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 9, 2004.

*560Kathleen S. Koh, Law Offices of Kathleen S. Koh, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.

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, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Fransiscus Xaverius Boyke Kewo and his son Brian B. Kewo, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision that petitioners’ asylum applications were untimely. *See Molinar-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, to review the BIA’s dismissal of petitioners’ remaining claims. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings that petitioners failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that they would be subject to persecution if returned to Indonesia, as required to qualify for withholding of removal. *See Al-Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, petitioners are not entitled to CAT relief because they failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if returned to Indonesia. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that their due process rights were violated because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision *561is factually inaccurate because the BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s decision and added its own reasoning.

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), petitioners’ motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was granted, 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 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

**

 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0622

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LLOYD MORTIER BARRUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Vickie L. Pratt is 

granted an extension of time to and including April 24, 2023, within 

which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 10 2023

02/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0662
**Exhibit
      15.1**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 20-F
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2005, of our report dated March 2, 2006
      (except for Note 18, for which the date is June 29, 2006), appearing
      in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-121231, effective
      December 14, 2004) of SuperCom Ltd. filed with the U.S. Securities and
      Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933.




Fahn
      Kanne & Co.


Certified
      Public Accountants (Isr.)




Tel-Aviv,
      Israel


June
      29,
      2006
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      William H. Joyce, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nalco Holdings
LLC ("Nalco") and Bradley J. Bell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with the filing of Nalco's 10-K financial
report (the "Report") with the Securities and Exchange Commission, covering the
period ending December 31, 2005, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as
follows:

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

      b.    The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
            Nalco.

                               /s/ William H. Joyce
                               ------------------------------------
                               William H. Joyce
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                               Date: March 2, 2006

                               /s/ Bradley J. Bell
                               ------------------------------------
                               Bradley J. Bell
                               Executive Vice President and Chief
                               Financial Officer
                               Date: March 2, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to Nalco Holding Company and will be retained by Nalco Holding Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 7 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 7

           Establishing the Corrections Day Calendar Office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

 Mr. Boehner submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Establishing the Corrections Day Calendar Office.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS CALENDAR OFFICE.

    There is established in the House of Representatives an office to 
be known as the Corrections Calendar Office, which shall have the 
responsibility of assisting the Speaker in the management of the 
Corrections Calendar under the Rules of the House of Representatives. 
The Office shall have not more than five employees--
            (1) who shall be appointed by the Speaker, in consultation 
        with the minority leader; and
            (2) whose annual rate of pay shall be established by the 
        Speaker, but may not exceed 75 percent of the maximum annual 
        rate under the general limitation specified by the order of the 
        Speaker in effect under section 311(d) of the Legislative 
        Branch Appropriations Act, 1988 (2 U.S.C. 60a-2a).
                                 <all>
```
#### Commonwealth *v.*Aylette B. Taylor.

Criminal Law — Bail—When Clerk May Take.

Bail may be taken by the clerk of tbe Circuit Court in cases in which, the accused has been committed to jail by the Circuit Court, and then only after the term has expired and in the absence of the judge.

Such clerk has no authority to take bail in cases where the accused has not been in the custody of the Circuit Court.

APPEAL PROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 8, 1871.

*Attorney-General, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The amendment to the 61st section of the *Criminal Code of Practice*approved February 5th, 1866 *(Session Acts*1865 and 1866, *page*26, authorizes bail to be taken by the clerk of the circuit court in cases in which :fhe accused has been committed to jail by the circuit court, and only then after the term had expired and in the absence of the judge of said court.

Such clerk 'has no authority to take bail in cases in which the accused has been committed by an examining court, and has never been in the custody of the circuit court.

Wherefore the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION 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, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the registrant.
  /s/ Peter StokesPeter StokesChief Executive Officer
 /s/ David MitchellDavid MitchellChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC and will be retained by Macquarie Infrastructure Company
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 167
#### T&T DEVELOPMENT CO. v. SOUTHERN NAT. BANK OF S.C.

No. 155P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 600

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 257 -CR

M ic hae l Jo se ph Ta plin , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 05- 1000 -K 368 , HO NORAB LE B URT CARNES , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N
Michae l J oseph Taplin see ks to appea l his conviction for t wo counts of a g g ravated sexual assault of a child. The pro se notice of ap p eal was filed two months after sentenc e was imposed. S

ee Tex . R. Ap p. P. 2 6. 2( a ). Th e tr ia l c ourt ha s c e rt if ie d th at th is i s a

ple a ba rg a in
case and Ta

pl i n h as no rig ht of appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d). The c ourt has al s o ce rt ified that Taplin wa ived the right of appe al. See Blan c o v . S tate , 1 8 S. W. 3 d

2 1 8 , 220 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); se eals o M on re al v . S

tate , 99 S.W .3d 6 1 5 , 6 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The a ppeal is dismissed.2 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: May

22, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh