alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUO LIN WANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70822

Agency No. A099-538-364

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Guo Lin Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial

FILED

MAR 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70822

evidence factual findings. Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th

Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.

Wang contends that because of his participation in an underground church in

China, he was arrested by government officials, detained for seven days, slapped,

and suffered from an illness as a result of his incarceration. The record does not

compel the conclusion that Wang suffered past persecution based on these

experiences. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006);

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). However, substantial

evidence does not support the agency’s relocation finding based on evidence

suggesting that in some places it is easier to attend unregistered churches and that

there are areas where perhaps authorities are more lenient. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b)(3)(ii); Fakhry, 524 F.3d at 1065 (because petitioner testified he

feared persecution at the hands of the government, he “gains the benefit of the

presumption that the threat of persecution exists nationwide and that relocation is

therefore unreasonable”); Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2010)

(discussing factors to consider in determining whether relocation is reasonable). 

We therefore grant the petition for review as to the agency’s well-founded fear
3 08-70822

finding and remand for further proceedings. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,

16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR ALVARADO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73116

Agency No. A074-424-184

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2015** 

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Hector Alvarado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law

FILED

NOV 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
or constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005). We dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review. 

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision, pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f), that Alvarado lacked good moral character. See

Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006). Although we

retain jurisdiction to review colorable questions of law or constitutional claims, see

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Alvarado’s contention that the agency erred in its moral

character determination because his alleged misrepresentations were not listed as

one of the per se statutory exclusions found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) fails because the

agency’s determination was based in the statute’s “catch-all” provision. See 8

U.S.C. § 1101(f) (final paragraph). Alvarado’s remaining challenges to the

agency’s discretionary decision are not colorable constitutional or legal challenges

that would invoke our jurisdiction. 

Petitioner’s remaining contention regarding his eligibility for a stay is moot. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

2 12-73116
Exhibit 10.1(b)

Schedule of Secured Convertible Notes (new financings) issued by NCT Group, Inc.
           to Carole Salkind and Outstanding as of September 30, 2005



                                                                   Conversion
        Issue Date           Due Date            Principal            Price
       ------------         ----------       ----------------      -----------
         04/14/05            10/14/05         $   390,000.00         $0.0130
         04/26/05            10/26/05             390,000.00         $0.0110
         05/16/05            11/16/05             350,000.00         $0.0123
         06/10/05            12/10/05             350,000.00         $0.0100
         06/24/05            12/24/05             576,000.00         $0.0160
         07/26/05            01/26/06             350,000.00         $0.0100
         08/08/05            02/08/06           5,000,000.00         $0.0100
         08/24/05            02/24/06             300,000.00         $0.0080
         09/26/05            03/26/06             350,000.00         $0.0050


                                             ----------------
                                              $    8,056,000
                                             ================
10133.

#### Prince *v.*Evans.

Decided April 22, 1919.

Action for breach of contract; from city court of LaGrange— Judge Moon. September 20, 1918.

*R. A. McGraw, J. B. Hatchett,*for plaintiff.

*Lee B. Wyatt, Arthur Greer, L. L. Meadors,*for defendant.

Bloodworth, J.

1. Where a bill of exceptions recites the filing of a petition and of a demurrer thereto, that the demurrer was sustained and the case dismissed, and states that “to this ruling and to this judgment of the court on said demurrer plaintiff excepted, now excepts, and assigns the same as error, on the ground that said judgment and ruling is contrary to law,” the assignment of error is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the writ of error. *DuBose*v. *Bank of Sparta,*139 *Ga.*115 (76. S. E. 864); *Galloway*v. *Vestal,*135 *Ga.*707 (2) (70 S. E. 589); *Toomey*v. *Read,*133 *Ga.*855 (67 S. E. 100); *McGregor*v. *Third National Bank,*124 *Ga.*557 (3) (53 S. E. 93); *American Investment Co.*v. *Cable Co.,*4 *Ga. App.*106 (60 S. E. 1037 ) ; *O’Neal*v. *Miller,*9 *Ga. App.*180 (2) (70 S. E. 971).

2. A petition which seeks to recover damagés from a vendor of fertilizers because of his failure to deliver a portion of a lot of guano contracted for, resulting in the purchaser not having enough fertilizer for his entire farm, and the consequent failure of a portion of land cultivated by him to produce as much corn and cotton without the fertilizer as it would have done'with it,, was properly dismissed on demurrer, even though the petition alleged that the land upon which the guano furnished was used produced more than that upon which it was not used, and though all the land “received the same cultivation and attention and had the same seasons.” Such damages are too remote and are not “such as the parties contemplated when the contract was made, as the probable result of its breach.” Civil Code (1910), §§ 4394, 4395; *Williams Mfg. Co.*v. *Schofield’s Sons Co.,*21 *Ga. App.*23 (2), 27 (93 S. E. 527), and cases cited. See also *Leitner*v. *Goodwin,*60 *Ga.*148 (2) ; *Butler*v. *Moore,*68 *Ga.*780 (45 Am. R. 508).

3. “In a suit for special damages alone, where the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the special damages sued, for, there can be no recovery of „ general or nominal damages.” *Twin City Lumber Co.*v. *Daniels,*22 *Ga. App.*578 (4), 587 (96 S. E. 437), and cases cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PHARES SYLINCE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3081

[December 7, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg 

Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2005CF001981A.

Phares Sylince, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Maria Valdez

Jacob Mathley

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, October 6, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez as to Jacob Mathley: The

Defendant's conditions of release are modified as follows: Defendant's passport is to be

surrendered to Pretrial Services forthwith. The Defendant is not to use any internet

capable devices. Mailed notice (lp, )

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 #: 26 Filed: 10/06/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:64
Exhibit 10.2

                                September 1, 2005

Mr. Lee Kasper
c/o NuTech Digital, Inc.
7900 Gloria Avneue
Van Nuys, California 91406

Dear Lee:

         The Board of Directors of NuTech Digital, Inc. (the "Company") has
approved a grant to you of an incentive stock option covering 8,000,000 shares
of restricted common stock. An option for 6,000,000 shares shall be granted to
you in conjunction with the execution of your Employment Agreement, as set forth
in Section 4(c) thereto. An option for the remaining 2,000,000 shares shall be
granted to you as a performance incentive. The market value of the Company's
common stock today is $0.11. Because these are intended to be incentive stock
options, the exercise price for you will be $0.121, or 110% of the market price.
The term of these options will be five years, until September 1, 2010, after
which time the options shall not be exercisable. The Company will seek
shareholder approval of these options at its next annual meeting of
shareholders. The Company will register the options on an S-8 Registration
Statement. You may not transfer these options other than by Will or the laws of
descent and distribution. During your lifetime, these options will be
exercisable only by you. The performance incentive options will be exercisable
by you when and if the Company meets the following milestones:

         (1) Your right to purchase 1,000,000 shares will vest if the Company
earns $2,000,000 in revenues during any calendar quarter of the 2005 fiscal
year;

         (2) Your right to purchase 500,000 shares will vest if the Company
earns at least $5,000,000 in revenues during the 2005 fiscal year; and

         (3) Your right to purchase 500,000 shares will be issued to you upon
the successful production by the Company of no less than two major music
concerts during the final four months of the 2005 fiscal year. A major music
concert for this purpose shall be defined as a concert whose production budget
is no less than $250,000.

         If, for any reason, the option does not qualify for incentive option
treatment under section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code, it will be considered
to be a non-qualified option.

         The Board of Directors is confident in your ability to successfully
meet these performance objectives. If you agree to this proposal, please
countersign this letter at the space indicated below.

                                Very truly yours,

                                NuTECH DIGITAL, INC.



                                By:
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   Eli Aramyan, Director

September 1, 2005

         I have read the above letter and agree to its terms.



                                   ----------------------------------
                                   Lee Kasper
EXHIBIT 31.1IEA Income Fund IX, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund IX, L.P. (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 12, 2005     /s/ DENNIS J TIETZ
#### H. C. Hampton *v.*J. C. Moss.

Bills and Notes — Assignment—Action by Assignee Against Assignor— Sufficiency of Petition.

In an action by an assignee against assignor the petition must allege that the obligor has been prosecuted to insolvency, when the execution was issued, the consideration paid for the note, that the assignor promised to be responsible if the maker proved insolvent, that the assignor represented to the assignee that the maker was solvent when the note was assigned.

APPEAL FROM WARREN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

March 13, 1872.

*Rodes & Clark, for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

By a- very slight examination of the petition it will be seen that there is a total failure to stat'e the facts necessary to show that the obligors of the note were prosecuted with proper diligence to legal insolvency.

It does not appear when they were sued, nor when the execution was issued against them; these dates so important to show due diligence are left blank. Besides, it appears from the petition that the note was sold and passed by delivery from Hampton to appellee, and he fails to allege what he gave for the note, or that Hampton assumed and promised to be responsible in case the makers of the note proved insolvent — to rebut the presumption that he was not liable by the sale and delivery of the note without an assignment of it. And he fails to aver that Hampton represented to him that Lowe & Hunt were solvent when he sold the note to him, and thereby induced him to take the note when he knew they were insolvent at the time.

In no view, therefore, in which the petition can be considered are the facts therein stated sufficient to constitute a cause of action against appellants.

Wherefore, the judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded for a new trial and further proceedings consistent herewith.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11


                            PROMUS HOTEL CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATIONS OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


(in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                            Three months ended March 31,
                                                 1997         1998
                                               --------     --------

<S>                                            <C>          <C>
Net income                                      $38,902      $36,016
                                                =======      =======


 Basic Earnings per Share:

  Weighted average outstanding shares            87,097       86,415
                                                =======      =======
  Net income                                    $  0.45      $  0.42
                                                =======      =======

Diluted Earnings per Share:

  Weighted average outstanding shares            87,097       86,415
  Effect of dilutive securities:
    Restricted stock                                 10            -
    Stock options and warrants                    1,313        1,224
                                                -------      -------
  Weighted average shares assuming 
    conversion                                   88,420       87,639
                                                =======      ======= 
  Net income                                    $  0.44      $  0.41
                                                =======      =======

</TABLE>


                                          22
10210.

#### Masters *v.*Southern Express Company.

Decided April 19, 1919.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. October 29,1918.

*R. R. Jackson,*for plaintiff.

*Robert C. & Philip H. Alston, Herman E. Riddell,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

1. The writ of certiorari lies for the correction of errors committed by the trial court. Accordingly, the writ may not for the first time raise a point which should have been raised before the trial court, and on which that court should- have been given an opportunity to rule at the time of trial.

2. Upon the petition for certiorari and the answer thereto no error in the trial of the case is shown. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,772
<SECURITIES>                                     2,301
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                    49,818
<INVENTORY>                                      8,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,827
<PP&E>                                         199,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 400,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,106
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           490
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   400,634
<SALES>                                        291,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               317,435
<CGS>                                          265,340
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  265,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                57,606
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,618)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,386)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,232)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,232)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)


</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 DIMENSIONAL VISIONS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Preston J. Shea, President and Chief Accounting 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:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Preston J. Shea

Preston J. Shea

President and Chief Accounting Officer







May 23, 2005