alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jose Alfredo RODRIGUEZ HEREDIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-72605, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 20, 2004.

Jose Alfredo Rodriguez Heredia, San Fernando, CA, pro se.

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, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*613Before 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**

Jose Alfredo Rodriguez Heredia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo both legal determinations regarding an alien’s eligibility for cancellation of removal, *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir.2002), and constitutional claims, *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Rodriguez Heredia’s contention, the IJ properly denied his application for cancellation of removal because he did not have a qualifying relative for whom his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)D; *Montero-Martinez,*277 F.3d at 1145.

Rodriguez Heredia’s contention that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is unconstitutional because it holds some petitioners to a higher standard than others who fall under the purview of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act is foreclosed by our decision in *Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) (“Congress’s decision to afford more favorable treatment to certain aliens ‘stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States’ ”) (citation omitted).

Rodriguez Heredia’s challenge to the BIA’s streamlined decision is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).

We deny as untimely Rodriguez Heredia’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order denying his motion for stay of removal. *See*9th Cir. R. 27-10.

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.
Exhibit 13.6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Investments Limited (the "Company") for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Rick Medlock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/RICK MEDLOCKRick Medlock Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------

Date:
April 29, 2005

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

VALENTINO ROSSI, )

) Case No.: 20-cv-4804

)

) Judge Virginia M. Kendall

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON )

SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff VALENTINO 

ROSSI, hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint against the following 

Defendants identified in Schedule A. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant

17 ShenZhen Lianbotongshi Co., Ltd

26 1314lwy

30 ammos nxehemiah coltd

33 centralstone

36 Cinglingsie

45 firstwise

53 healthincenseltd

55 huayushuhuayi

68 mubowen

87 songkay

93 Tonghuistationery Store

97 Where Home

98 wisebeauty

102 yilushunfeng

111 Zhangyonghua123

149 Ninehouse

Case: 1:20-cv-04804 Document #: 31 Filed: 10/20/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1076
The respective Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 20, 2020 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Valentino Rossi

Case: 1:20-cv-04804 Document #: 31 Filed: 10/20/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1077
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on October 20, 2020.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-04804 Document #: 31 Filed: 10/20/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1078
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00585

Honorable Jorge L. Alonso

Jacob Mathley

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 23, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso as to Jacob Mathley:

Telephonic status hearing held and continued to 7/22/21 at 2:00 p.m. Members of the

public and media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing. The call−in number is

888−808−6929 and the access code is 4911854. Counsel of record will receive an email

30 minutes prior to the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call.

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition

against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of

these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media

credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any

other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Notice mailed by Judge's staff In the

interest of justice and for the reasons stated on the record, time is hereby excluded to

7/22/21 pursuant to the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC § 3161(h)(7)(A)(B)

and 18 USC § 3161 (h)(1)(D). Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/23/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:96
Handbook 133, Fourth Edition (2005) 

2004 Amendments 

The following table lists the laws and regulations amended by the 89th NCWM. As appropriate, the text on the cited 

pages indicates the changes to the section or paragraph as "Added 2004" or "Amended 2004." Unless otherwise noted,

the effective date of the information “Added” or “Amended” in 2004 is January 1, 2005.

L&R Committee 

Item No. 

Chapter, Section, 

And Title 

Action Page

None 

Handbook 133, Fourth Edition (2005)

2004 Editorial Corrections 

Chapter, Section, 

And Title 

Action Page

Chapter 3, Section 3.2: Test Procedure. Amended step 3, volumetric measure 

selection for milk. 26 

Appendix A., Tables 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, and 2-10. Amended SI values to more closely

correspond to inch-pound values. 

A-6 – A-12

Appendix A, Table 2-11 Table corrected by including inspection lot

sizes from Table 2-1. A-13 

Appendix E., Standard Package Inspection Report

and Standard Inspection Report – Example 

Amended title of Box 9 (Rc) to match 

Random Package Inspection Report. E-4, E-5 

vii
9724.

#### BRYANT *v.*THE STATE.

1. In a criminal ease in which the defendant has made a statement at the trial, the court should charge the rule of law touching the defendant’s statement; and failure to do this is reversible error, even in the absence of a request, unless it appears from the facts in the case that no harm resulted to the defendant. In this case it does not so appear.

2. The foregoing ruling being controlling in this case, it is unnecessary to pass upon the assignments of error on the overruling of the defendant’s motion for a continuance, upon remarks of counsel in opening the case, and upon the admission of certain testimony. It is not proba*4ble that any error that may have been committed.’ therein will recur ■ upon another trial.

Decided November 7, 1918.

3. Since a new trial is granted, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is not-passed upon.

Indictment for seduction; from Gordon superior court—Judge Tarver. April 10, 1918.

*Maddox, McCamy &*Shumate, for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Lang, solicitor-general,*contra.

Harwell, J.

This was a trial for seduction, and the only witness (except a witness for the State, an officer, in reference to the arrest of the defendant) was the prosecutrix. The defendant introduced no witnesses, but made a short statement, denying that he had promised to marry the prosecutrix. In the motion for a new trial it is complained that the court omitted to instruct the jury on the law touching, the defendant’s statement at the trial. This case is very much like that of *Fields*v. *State,*2 *Ga. App.*41, 47 (58 S. E. 327), where this court said: “'In this particular case the omission [to charge with reference to the defendant’s statement] was harmful, for the reason that the statement of the defendant and the evidence of the little girl (totally antagonistic to each other) were the only evidence in regard to the commission of the crime.' The statement of the defendant was in material conflict with the evidence offered against his plea, and for that reason it was the duty of the court, without request, to instruct the jury fully upon that subject.” In the instant ease we can not say that the omission to charge with reference to the defendant’s statement was not' harmful, and-must hold that the failure to do so was reversible error. *Rivers*v. *State,*8 *Ga. App.*694 (70 S. E. 47); *Burns*v. *State,*89 *Ga,*527 (15 S. E. 748); *Doster*v. *State,*93 *Ga.*43 (18 S. E. 997);*Culver*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*822 (2), 824 (53 S. E. 316).

We have not overlooked the qualifying note of the trial judge, and the testimony’taken upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial. It does not appear from this testimony, however, that counsel representing this defendant knew of the omission of the court to charge with reference to the defendant’s statement until *after the verdict had been returned by the jury,*when he made inquiry of.the court stenographer. Nothing appears in this testimony to cure the error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
#### HURON COPYSETTE, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 77-1626.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 19, 1980.

Earl R. Boonstra, Gregory M. Kopacz, Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

Victoria Higman, Elliott Moore, Elinor Stillman, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Lynne Deitch, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Emil C. Farkas, Director Region 9, N. L. R. B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.

*713Before WEICK, CELEBREZZE and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This case is before the court on petition of Huron Copysette, Inc., pursuant to § 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151*et seq.,*to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued on September 29,1977, and reported at 232 NLRB No. 92. The Board has cross applied for enforcement of its order.

Huron Copysette, Inc., is a company engaged in the manufacture of paper products in Leitchfield, Kentucky. The Board found that the company attempted to avert the unionization of its employees by the Cooper’s International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Specifically, the Board found that the company violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating employees concerning their Ünion activities and by threatening plant closure and less favorable working conditions if the employees voted for a union. The Board also found that the company violated § 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating employee William Howell because of his Union activity.

The record when considered as a whole substantially supports the Board’s findings. Shortly after the Union organizing campaign began, company officials began coercively interrogating and threatening employees as to the consequences of bringing in the Union. Further, there is substantial evidence that the termination of employee William Howell was prompted by anti-union reasons, rather than by valid considerations as the company contends.

Accordingly, the Board’s order is enforced.
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 annual report on Form 10-K of HMP Equity Holdings Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|/s/PETER. R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 28, 2005 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 389 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 389

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the use of certain grant funds to establish an information 
 clearinghouse that provides information to increase public access to 
                       defibrillation in schools.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 389

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the use of certain grant funds to establish an information 
 clearinghouse that provides information to increase public access to 
                       defibrillation in schools.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Automatic Defibrillation in Adam's 
Memory Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    Subsection (c) of section 312 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 244), as amended by Public Law 107-188, is amended--
            (1) at the end of paragraph (5), by striking ``and'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
            ``(6) establish an information clearinghouse that provides 
        information to increase public access to defibrillation in 
        schools; and''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
##### 



Exhibit 15.1

May 7, 2003

Vornado Operating Company
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Vornado Operating Company for the periods ended March 31, 2003
and 2002, as indicated in our report dated May 7, 2003; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred
to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2003, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-68458 on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-77143 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the
aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
Tina Wolfson Active Cases in Northern District of Illinois:

Case Number Case Title Assigned Judge

1:19-cv-07164 Acaley v. Vimeo, Inc. Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

1:15-cv-02980 Bakov V. Consolidated World Travel Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber

1:20-cv-04699 In Re: TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation Honorable John Z. Lee

1:20-cv-04723 In re: TikTok, Inc. Privacy Litigation Honorable John Z. Lee

1:19-cv-04722 Miracle-Pond et al v. Shutterfly, Inc. Honorable Mary M. Rowland

1:14-cv-00561 Moyer v. Michaels Stores Inc. Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo

1:19-cv-06627 Powell Prescription et al v. Surescripts et al Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr

1:14-cv-01735 Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC Honorable Sharon J. Coleman

1:16-cv-02714 Rivera et al v. Google LLC. Honorable Edmond E. Chang

1:20-cv-05090 Rossi v. Claire's Stores, Inc. et al Honorable Andrea R. Wood

1:20-cv-04729 S.A. v. TikTok, Inc. et al Honorable John Z. Lee

1:20-cv-02553 Williams v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 

et al

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 100-1 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1838
#### Willis U. Niblack *v.*Harrison S. Niblack, etc.

Deeds- — Acknowledgment of Receipt of Consideration.

An acknowledgment in a deed of receipt of the consideration recited therein is only prima facie evidence thereof, and may he over*546thrown by clear and satisfactory evidence that. the consideration had not been paid.

Evidence — Confessions or Admissions.

Confessions or admissions are the strongest evidence against the party making them if they are clearly established, the only weakness being in the evidence of confessions or admissions.

APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT.

March 8, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

L. A. Niblack and wife in 1867 conveyed 100 acres of land in Clark County to their son, the appellant, for the consideration, as expressed in the deed, “of three hundred dollars cash in hand, and the natural love and affection that said parties have for their said son, etc., etc.”

In 1868 L. A. Niblack, the grantor, died intestate, and administration ivas granted on his estate to appellant. This suit was brought by a part of the heirs of the intestate claiming the estate to be distributed against appellant, charging that he never paid the three hundred dollars, the money consideration, for the land to his father in his lifetime, and had failed and refused to account for the same since his death; and they pray that he he compelled to pay said sum of money to them:

Appellant in his answer denies the allegations of the petition, and avers that he paid the money to his father. On the trial of the issue thus made by the pleadings judgment was rendered by the court below against W. V. Niblack for the sum claimed and he has appealed to this court.

The recital in the deed is to be regarded as an acknowledgment of the receipt of the three hundred dollars, the language imports that and nothing more. But such an acknowledgment as has often been held by this court, is only prim'a facie and not conclusive evidence of payment. To overturn that presumption, however, the evidence should be clear and satisfactory that the money had not been paid.

In the present „case three witnesses testify that appellant stated to them that he had not paid the money and promised that he would pay it, and a fourth says in a conversation with appellant, he said he would settle the claim, and in corroboration of that position it is *547shown that no money was paid when the deed was executed and acknowledged, and appellant gives no account of how or when he made the payment.

Admissions and confessions are not the weakest and most unreliable evidence, as counsel for appellant insists,, known to the law; it is only the evidence of such admissions that is weak; but confessions, or admissions for themselves, are the strongest evidence against the party making them when they are clearly established.

We are therefore satisfied that the evidence sustains the judgment, and it must be *affirmed.*

--, *for appellant.*

-, *for appellees.*
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-IN-CERTIORARI, v. PETE DIXON AND LOUIS MUNGIOLO, PROSECUTORS-IN-CERTIORARI.

Argued October 2, 1945

Decided October 31, 1945.

*349Before Justices Case, Bodixe and Peeskie.

For the prosecutors, *George S. Friedman*and *Joseph, Narrow.*

For the defendant, *William R. Smith.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

An indictment is brought before us on *certiorari.*It charges that Pete Dixon and Louis Mungioli, "did conspire, * * * to commit an act for the perversion and obstruction of justice and the due administration of the laws, to wit, to have the sentence of Pete Dixon theretofore charged with an assault upon one J. W. Rainnie and an assault upon one Junior Harris, and with resisting arrest, fixed to the end that the said Pete Dixon would obtain probation rather than commitment to States Prison * *

The overt act charged done in pursuance of the conspiracy was the payment by Dixon to Mungioli of the sum of $800.

The statutes of this state respecting conspiracies are to be found in *R. S.*2:119-1 and 2. It was necessary to charge an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy. The act charged was the payment of money by one conspirator to another. The conspiracy was to commit an act injurious to the public, the perversion or obstruction of justice. Hence, the act done — the payment of money — may have been lawful, still the evil purpose charged makes the indictment sufficient. See *State*v. *Herbert,*92 *N. J. L.*341 (at *p.*355); *State*v. *Hemmendinger,*100 *Id.*234.

The act done in such case need not be unlawful. Suffice it, that the charge was that the conspiracy was to prejudice the public. *State*v. *Continental Purchasing Co.,*119 *N. J. L.*257; *affirmed,*121 *Id.*76. See, also, an exhaustive study of indictments for conspiracy in the case of *State*v. *Ellenstein,*121 *Id.*304.

The writ will be dismissed, with costs.