alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60430

Summary Calendar

Gustavo Javier Rios-Aguilar, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A207 006 049

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Gustavo Javier Ríos-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Honduras,

petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing an appeal from an order of the immigration judge 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 13, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60430 Document: 00516166666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2022
No. 21-60430

2

(IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under 

the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and Niz-Chavez 

v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), Ríos-Aguilar first contends that, because 

his Notice to Appear did not provide the date and time of his initial 

immigration hearing, it was “defective” or “invalid.” Because Ríos-Aguilar 

did not present this claim to the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See 

Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 

448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001).

With respect to any purported challenge to the BIA’s dismissal of his 

application for withholding of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider RíosAguilar’s contention that he was persecuted on account of his membership 

in a particular social group because he did not present this claim to the BIA. 

See Omari, 562 F.3d at 318; Wang, 260 F.3d at 452. Otherwise, by failing to 

directly address the reasons that the BIA articulated for upholding the IJ’s 

denial of his application for withholding of removal, by failing to identify any 

error in the BIA’s analysis, and by failing to adequately cite the record or 

caselaw in support of his petition, Ríos-Aguilar has abandoned any challenge 

to the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,

833 (5th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, Ríos-Aguilar has abandoned for failure to 

brief any challenge to the BIA’s determination that he waived any claim for 

protection under the CAT. See id.

Ríos-Aguilar’s petition for review is DENIED IN PART and 

DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 21-60430 Document: 00516166666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2022
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.8

                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 on Form 10-Q of Patriot Scientific
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended August 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jeffrey E. Wallin, 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 the best of my knowledge:

        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 Company.

                                         /S/ JEFFREY E. WALLIN
                                         ---------------------
                                         Name:  Jeffrey E. Wallin
                                         Title:  President and CEO
                                         Date: October 18, 2002
Honorable Thomas C. Mummert, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was submitted with the consent of the

parties in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-2657

_____________

Nelson W. McVey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: December 12, 1997

Filed: December 18, 1997

_____________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Nelson W. McVey appeals the judgment of the District Court affirming the

1

Commissioner's denial of McVey's application for disability benefits. Having

considered all of McVey's arguments for reversal, we conclude the administrative law

judge properly evaluated the opinions of the treating physicians, properly discounted
-2-

McVey's subjective complaints, and properly determined that McVey could perform

the full range of sedentary work and therefore was not disabled.

This case presents no novel issues to justify extended discussion. The

administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole,

and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
F-042Article Ref: F-042 

Weights and Measures Connection, Vol. 7, Issue Click here to enter text. Page 1

3/7/2016

Adoption of the SI in State Law

Byline: Ken Butcher

As many of you know, the SI units are set to be updated in 2018, which will include the redefinition of the 

kilogram. You may want to think about making sure that your state laws will remain current after these 

changes take effect. The best way to do so would be to mirror the language in 

NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Weights and Measures Law, Section 2, Note 2: 

“SI or SI Unit. – means the International System of Units as established in 1960 by the General 

Conference on Weights and Measures and interpreted or modified for the United States by the 

Secretary of Commerce.... See also NIST Special Publication 330, ‘The International System of 

Units (SI)’” 

or in 15 U.S.C. 205, which was adopted in 2007:

"The metric system of measurement shall be defined as the International System of Units as 

established in 1960, and subsequently maintained, by the General Conference on Weights and 

Measures, and as interpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary of Commerce.”

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ69/pdf/PLAW-110publ69.pdf (See Sec. 3570. 

Mectric System Defined.)

The advantage to either of these definitions is that they aren’t dependent on any particular publication, 

which would change over time. NIST, under delegated authority from the Secretary of Commerce, 

periodically announces in the Federal Register what the official interpretation of the International System 

of Units (“SI") might be. The latest information is here http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/metricpubs.cfm, but because of proposed changes to SI being considered by the international community, we 

expect these documents to be updated in a few years.
exe =

STRONTIUM STABLE OPTICAL
ATOMS LASERS LATTICES

FIND YOUR WAY TO ABSOLUTE ZERO

ULTRA COLD

MOUNTAINS
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3991 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3991

Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for the Federal 
             Air Marshals program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2004

   Mr. Sabo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for the Federal 
             Air Marshals program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 2004:

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

               SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

                  Immigration and Customs Enforcement

                          federal air marshals

    For an additional amount for ``Federal Air Marshals'', $13,500,000.

                 DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

                              (rescission)

      Of the funds appropriated under this heading in the Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-90), 
$9,500,000 is rescinded.

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

                              (rescission)

      Of the funds appropriated under this heading in the Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-90), 
$4,000,000 is rescinded.
                                 <all>
```
#### Clinton Griffith *v.*Reason McDaniel.

Pleading — Extortion—Sufficiency of Petition.

A petition to recover back money obtained by extortion under color of legal proceedings, beld insufficient and subject to demurrer.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

December 12, 1872.

*Swoope, for appellant.*

*Crutcher & Ellis, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

Admitting the principle that an'action will lie to recover back “money obtained by extortion under color of legal proceedings in contradiction to the general rule that an action can not be maintained to recover money.paid under a judgment,” we are of the opinion that the petition in this case is fatally defective and the court erred in overruling the demurrer to it. Although it is alleged that Weir’s execution came to Harrison’s hands, and that the money was paid to Harrison, there is no disagreement of the time of the' payment, nor that Harrison received the money as sheriff upon the execution when it was alive and in force. It is true a paper purporting to be the receipt of Harrison as sheriff is exhibited; but the petition admits that it bears date before the execution, and yet fails to state when the payment was made.

■ Notwithstanding all the allegations of the petition may be true, the payment may have been made to Harrison without any authority, and thus not have operated to satisfy the debt of Weir.

As the petition may be amended, and the case again tried, we will' express no opinion as to the evidence.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer to the petition for the reasons indicated, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4013

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the approval 

of any drug that infringes the right to life, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2004

Mr. GINGREY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

prohibit the approval of any drug that infringes the 

right to life, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT; 

4 PROHIBITION AGAINST APPROVAL OF DRUG 

5 INFRINGING RIGHT TO LIFE. 

6 Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

7 Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following subsection: 

9 ‘‘(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

10 section, the Secretary may not approve an application 
2

•HR 4013 IH 

1 under subsection (b) or (j) for a drug whose intended use 

2 would infringe the right to life. Drugs whose approval is 

3 prohibited under the preceding sentence include a drug in4 tended to assist with the act of suicide and a drug in5 tended to induce an abortion. 

6 ‘‘(2) Effective upon the expiration of 30 days after 

7 the effective date of this subsection—

8 ‘‘(A) the approved application under subsection 

9 (b) or (j) of any drug whose intended use infringes 

10 the right to life within the meaning of paragraph (1) 

11 is deemed to have been withdrawn under subsection 

12 (e) or (j)(6), respectively; and 

13 ‘‘(B) a drug to which subparagraph (A) applies 

14 shall be considered adulterated for purposes of sec15 tion 301.’’.

Æ
First Amendment to Restated Employment Agreement



 






Exhibit 10.6




EXECUTION COPY




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2005 AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          First Amendment, dated as of September 28, 2005 (this “Amendment”), to the 2005 Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of April 15, 2005, between Avatar Properties Inc., a
Florida corporation (the “Company”), and Michael F. Levy (the “Employee”).




W I T N E S S E T H:




          WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into the 2005 Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of April 15, 2005; and




          WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Agreement to correct an inaccurate
cross reference.




          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and obligations
hereinafter set forth, the Company and the Employee, intended to be legally bound, hereby agree as
follows:




          1. Section 6(e) of the Agreement is amended by deleting the words “Sections 6(c)(i) and
6(c)(ii)” in clause (i) of the third sentence of Section 6(e) and replacing them with “Sections
6(d)(i) and 6(d)(ii)”.




          2. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Agreement remains unmodified and in full force
and effect.




          3. This Amendment shall be subject to, and governed by, the laws of the State of Florida
applicable to contracts made and to be performed in the State of Florida, regardless of where the
Employee is in fact required to work.




          4. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
to be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first
above written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	AVATAR PROPERTIES INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	   /s/ Gerald D. Kelfer	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Gerald D. Kelfer	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Chairman of the Board	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	  /s/ Michael F. Levy	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	  Michael F. Levy
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00300

- CV

T EXAS H EALTH C ARE
, P.L.L.C. AND T IMOTHY J. J ONES , D.O., Appellants

V

.

E. D., A M INOR , BY AND THROUGH HER
PARENTS B.O. AND D.D. AS N EXT F RIENDS , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 352nd District Court

of Tarrant County (352

- 293099

- 17)

March 5, 2020

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. W e reverse th e trial c ourt ’ s order denying

Texas Health Care, P.L.L.C. and Timothy J. Jones, D.O. ’ s motion to d is miss

, and we

render judgment dismissing with prejudice the health care liab i lity claim s of E. D., by

and through her parents B.O. and D.D. We remand this c ase to t he trial court to

assess T e xas Health ’ s and Dr. Jones ’ s reasonable atto rney ’ s fees and court costs

.

It is further ordered that Appell e e shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for

which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wa de Birdwell Justice Wade Birdwell
Exhibit
31.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Rule
13a–14(a)/15d–14(a) Certification




I,
Frederick C. Goerner, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify
that:





1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
August  31, 2008 of Patriot Scientific Corporation;





2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





(a)           Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)           Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





(c)           Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant'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
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:
October 10, 2008


/s/
      Frederick C. GoernerFrederick
      C. Goerner
              Chief Executive
      Officer
#### John W. Kelley *v.*R. Miles and Wife.

Vendor and Purchaser — Sufficiency of evidence.

Certain evidence held not to overcome evidence that the father actually purchased the land for his daughter, paid a certain amount of the funds of his daughter and advanced $75 of his own money.

APPEAL FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 19, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Martin proves that as agent of one of the Greens, guardian of one, and husband of the other heir of Henry Green, deceased, who owned the lots in controversy, he sold them to James Marrattay, that Marrattay paid $200 to Fanny Green, and sent $325 and a note for $75 to be paid to him, the witness, when a deed was made to the property, and afterwards Marrattay paid him the seventy-five dollars in satisfaction of the note, and he stated that at the time Marrattay bought the property he told him he was buying it for his daughter, Mrs. Miles, that he had received $800 or $1,000 from her grandfather’s estate and he wanted to invest it in a house and lot *478for his daughter and her heirs. The sale was made in parol of the house and lot about six weeks before the conveyance was made, as-' Martin proves. A copy of the deed is filed and it bears date September 1, 1866.

*Brown & Lewis, for appellant.*

*Hays, for appellees.*

Murray proves he was one of the administrators of Caleb Hardesty, grandfather of Mrs. Susan Miles, and that as such he paid to her $600 on the 30th of January, 1854., He thinks she handed it to her husband.

Mr. McElroy proves that he was on the 10th of September, 1865, cashier of the Washington Bank, and on that day the bank loaned R. P. Miles $500 in currency for which the bank received $500 in gold and silver as collateral security, and that Miles could not have gotten the money without good personal or collateral surety, and on the 10th of July, 1866, he redeemed the gold and silver.

The currency could not have been gotten from the bank to pay for the Springfield property; it was borrowed nearly one year and returned a month or two before the purchase was consummated, and money paid Martin proves the property was paid for in currency; no connection therefore is shown between the bank transaction and the purchase of the house and lots.

Mrs. Overton, it is true, says that R. P. Miles told her he had bought the house from' the other children, and she thought she was conveying the property to him, when she signed the deed, but she was mistaken as to whom the conveyance was made as the deed shows.

This evidence is not sufficient to overcome the evidence of Martin to the fact that Marrattay actually made the purchase, paid the money and said at the time that $525 of the price paid was the money of Mrs. Miles, and the residue of $75 he himself advanced.

We do not, therefore, feel authorized to disturb the judgment, wherefore the same is *affirmed.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Parole Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

10:30 a.m., Friday, November 21, 2014.

# PLACE:

U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Determination on seven original jurisdiction cases.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7001.

Dated: November 14, 2014.

Isaac Fulwood,

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 2014-27444 Filed 11-14-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-P