alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pablo RUBIO-MARQUEZ; Pablo Rubio-Zamudio; Laura Zamudio De Rubio, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 99-71030.

INS Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] [ AXXXXX-XXX ] [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2001.1

Decided March 26, 2001.

Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

1

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

MEMORANDUM2

Pablo Rubio-Marquez, his wife Laura Zamudio De Rubio, and their son Pablo Rubio-Zamudio (“Petitioners”) petition for review of the final order of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Petitioners were served with orders to show cause (“OSC”) less than seven years after they entered the United States. At a hearing on November 19, 1996, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioners’ application for suspension of deportation because they had failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement before being served with the OSCs and thus were statutorily ineligible for suspension. On appeal, the BIA affirmed.

Petitioners contend that they were eligible for suspension of deportation and challenge the BIA’s decision that the “stop-*462time rale”—a new continuous physical presence requirement set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”)— bars such relief in their case. Moreover, Petitioners contend that the IJ erroneously applied the stop-time rule to their case before IIRIRA’s effective date of April 1, 1997. We agree that the IJ érred in applying the stop-time rule to Petitioners’ case before IIRIRA became effective. *Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS,*240 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir.2001).

We therefore grant the petition and remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ. If Petitioners pursue their suspension application, the IJ, in determining whether Petitioners are eligible for suspension of deportation, shall: (1) apply the law as it existed on November 19, 1996; and (2) consider the current facts and Petitioners’ current circumstances. *Id,*

We do not consider Petitioners’ eligibility, if any, for relief under the class action pending in the district court in accordance with *Barahona-Gomez v. Reno,*167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir.1999), *supplemental opinion,*236 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2001). Our resolution of this case does not affect any interim or permanent relief awarded to members of the class certified in *Barahona-Gomez.*

PETITION GRANTED; REVERSED and REMANDED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GLYNIS BETHEL, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : Civil Action 10-0142-WS-C 

JUDY A. NEWCOMB, et al., :

 Defendants. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to 

the issue raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is 

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey the Court=s order and to 

prosecute this action.

DONE this 19th day of July, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00142-WS-C Document 7 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENT 

TO SERVICES AND INVESTMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENT (this “Acknowledgement”), dated as of May 26, 2015 and effective as of March 31,
2015, is made by and between, EXCO Resources, Inc., a Texas corporation (“EXCO”), and Energy Strategic Advisory Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“ESAS”). EXCO and ESAS are each individually a
“Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”. 
 Reference is hereby made to that certain Services and
Investment Agreement, dated March 31, 2015, by and between the EXCO and ESAS (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement. 

WHEREAS, on May 15, 2015, the Parties identified clerical errors related to cross references contained in Sections 6.4(c) and 6.5(e) of
the Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, as a result of the identification of such clerical errors, the Parties now seek to (i) acknowledge that the
current language of Sections 6.4(c) and 6.5(e) does not accurately reflect the original intent of the Parties as of the Execution Date, and (ii) agree upon certain revisions to Sections 6.4(c) and 6.5(e) of the Agreement to properly reflect the
intent of the Parties. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 11.10 of the Agreement, the Parties hereto hereby agree to and
acknowledge the following, effective as of the Execution Date: 
  

	 	1.	Section 6.4(c) of the Agreement is hereby amended to replace the reference to “Section 6.1” with “Section 6.2(a) and Section 6.2(b)”. 


 

	 	2.	Section 6.5(e) of the Agreement is hereby amended to replace the reference to “Section 6.2” with “Section 6.1(a) and Section 6.1(b)”. 


 

	 	3.	The enforcement and interpretation of this Acknowledgement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. This Acknowledgement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,
but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile, .pdf or other electronic transmission of copies of signatures shall constitute original signatures for all purposes of this Acknowledgement and any enforcement
hereof. 

 [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank. Signature Pages to Follow] 







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

			
	ENERGY STRATEGIC ADVISORY SERVICES LLC
		
	Name:		 /s/ Charles John Wilder, Jr.

	By:		Charles John Wilder, Jr.
	Title:		Executive Chairman


 Signature Page to the Acknowledgement 







 
			
	EXCO RESOURCES, INC.
		
	Name:		 /s/ Harold L. Hickey

	By:		Harold L. Hickey
	Title:		President and Chief Executive Officer


 Signature Page to the Acknowledgement
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 174 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 174

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to a labor organization the 
             members of which are education professionals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

Mr. Jackson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Nehls, Mrs. Miller of 
  Illinois, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Moore of 
  Alabama, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Buck) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to a labor organization the 
             members of which are education professionals.

    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 ``No Federal Funding for Teacher's 
Unions Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--No Federal funds may be provided to a labor 
organization the members of which are education professionals.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Education professional.--The term ``education 
        professional'' means an individual who is employed by an 
        elementary school, secondary school, local educational agency, 
        State educational agency, or institution of higher education.
            (2) ESEA terms.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``local 
        educational agency'', ``secondary school'', and ``State 
        educational agency'' have the meanings given such terms in 
        section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
        1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
            (3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
        ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
        1001).
            (4) Labor organization.--The term ``labor organization'' 
        has the meaning given such term in section 2(5) of the National 
        Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(5)).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID L. WILLIAMS, *

*

 Plaintiff, * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00351-B

 *

vs. *

*

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, *

Commissioner of Social *

Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on this date, it is 

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for 

supplemental security income be REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DONE this 16th day of June, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00351-B Document 23 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29521]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 12, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Brookfield Financial Holdings, Inc., Brookfield, Illinois; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting 
shares of First National Bank of Brookfield, Brookfield, Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Border Bancshares Inc., Greenbush, Minnesota; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of First Advantage Bank, Coon Rapids, 
Minnesota.
    2. Park Financial Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota; to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Park State Bank, Duluth, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 12, 
2014.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-29521 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1602 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1602

   To repeal title IV of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and 
                        Consumer Protection Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2023

  Ms. Porter (for herself, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. 
 Nadler, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Schakowsky, 
Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Jayapal, 
  Mr. Lynch, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. 
Takano, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Raskin, Ms. 
   Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. 
 Barragan, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Pressley, Mr. Gallego, Ms. Bush, and Mr. 
 Robert Garcia of California) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal title IV of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and 
                        Consumer Protection Act.

    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 ``Secure Viable Banking Act'' or the 
``SVB Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF BANKING REGULATIONS.

    Title IV of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 
Protection Act is repealed and the provisions of law amended by such 
title are revived or restored as if such title had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
#### Alfred Bailey’s Adm’r *v.*W. R. Thompson.

Evidence — Account Books — Copies.

Account books duly authenticated may be introduced in evidence in a suit, but copies of such account books cannot be so introduced.

APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

January 5, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Subsec. .5, Sec. 25, Chap. 37, of the Gen. Stat. authorizes a party litigating with a personal representative, with regard to transactions had with the decedent, to testify as to the correctness of the original entries, if made by himself, when the claim or defense is founded on a book account; and if he authenticates the account book and .entries, they (the book and entries) may be admitted as evidence in the case. Upon the trial of this cause, it was. not proved that appellee kept regular books. If he did keep such books, he did not offer them in evidence. His defense is founded upon an account, purporting to be a correct copy, taken from an account book between himself and decedent. The statute does not authorize the introduction of copies taken from an account book. The book itself, when properly authenticated, may go to the jury, but there is no authority for admitting copies made from the book.

An inspection of the book may be essential to enable the jury to determine as to whether the entries were made contemporaneously with the transaction of which they are evidence. The testimony of *281the litigant is not. conclusive of this question, and was not intended so to be by the legislature. Further than this, the litigant should be confined in his statements to the making of the original entries in the book. He has no right to state, as he did in this case, that the account-is correct, independent of the book and the entries therein. It was error to permit the copy from the book to be read to the jury as evidence. The judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded for a new trial upon principles consistent with this opinion.

*B. F. Bennett, for appellants.*

*George M. Thom.as, for appellee.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
company's interim consolidated financial statements and is qualified in 
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-15-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                        868,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               868,962
<CGS>                                          610,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  610,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               288,681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (67,158)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (67,158)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                259,045 
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   191,887  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
---



Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Douglas Orr, Chief Financial 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 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.



Date:  August 6, 2007



/s/ R. Douglas OrrR. Douglas Orr
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998                               
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         79,695
<SECURITIES>                                   792
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               80,487
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 80,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          45,984
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          1,100,000
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,998
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,069,495)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   80,487
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,265
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               23,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22,715)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (22,715)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22,715)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRENDA BALBUENA, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : Civil Action No. 14-0188-KD-C

JOHN M. MCHUGH, Secretary, :

Department of the Army, et al.,

:

Defendants.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l)(B) and dated September 24, 2015 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 23) is GRANTED. This action 

is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

DONE this 21st day of October 2015.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00188-KD-C Document 27 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 1
| STANLEY |

Security Solutions

February 21, 2011

“Standardization feedback for Sub-Committee on Standards.”

Dear Sir,

Stanley Security Solution Inc. does see a benefit in government participation in developing private
sector voluntary consensus standards as long as the regulatory organization’s current processes
and bylaws are maintained.

Regards,

UA

Robert Strong
Standards Coordinator

Stanley Security Solutions, Inc.: Corporate Headquarters: 6161 East 75'” Street, Indianapolis, IN 46250
Ph: 317 849 2250 Fax: 317 806 3528
www.slanleysecuritysolutions.com