alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 2/21/18



## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SAN BUENAVEN TURA

, )

)

Plaintiff, Cross

- defendant )

and Appellant, )

) S226036

v. )

) Ct.App. 2/6 B251810

UNITED WATER CONSERV ATION )

DISTRICT et al., )

) Santa Barbara County

Defendants, Cross

- complainants )

and Appellants. ) Super. Ct. Nos. VENCI 00401714,

) VENCI 1414739

________________________________ ____ )

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION, DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING,

AND GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

THE COURT :

The opinion herein, appearing at 3 Cal.5th 1191, i s modified as follows:

1. The last two sentences appearing in footnote 3 in 3 Cal.5th at page 1200

are deleted. The footnote now reads: “Article XIII C provides that all taxes imposed

by local governments are either general taxes or special taxes (art. XIII C, § 2, subd.

(a)), and requires all general taxes to be approved by a majority vote (art. XIII C, § 2,

subd. (b)) and all special taxes to be approved by a two

- thirds vote (art. XIII C, § 2,

subd. (d)).”2

2. I n the second full paragraph appearing in 3 Cal.5th at page 1214, in the

third sentence in that paragraph, the phrase “the burdens on or” is inserted after the

phrase “a reasonable relationship to” and before the phrase “ the benefits of.” The

sentence now reads: “We thus remand the case to the C ourt of Appeal with

instructions to consider whether the record sufficiently establishes that the District’s

rates for the 2011

– 2012 and the 2012

– 2013 water years bore a reasonable relationship

to the burdens on or the benefits of its conservation activiti es, as article XIII C

requires.”

3. In the second full paragraph appearing in 3 Cal.5th at page 1214, in the

last sentence in that paragraph, the phrase “, as the District argues, it” is replaced with

“the parties.” The footnote at the end of this sen tence should be retained as in the

originally filed opinion. The sentence now reads: “In making this determination, the

Court of Appeal may consider whether the parties should be afforded the opportunity

to supplement the administrative record with evidence bearing on this question. 9 ”

This modification does not affect the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied. The motion for judicial notice is granted.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 2, 2009

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond**                     (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:                

*1. Edward Bailey Howlin, Jr., Davidsonville, Maryland, to individually acquire up to 20.71 percent of the voting shares of CommerceFirst, Bancorp, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland. Additionally, Edward Bailey Howlin, Jr., Howlin Family Partnership II, LLLP, Dawn Howlin Vanvie, and Holly Howlin, as a group acting in concert,;*                     to acquire up to 21.5 percent of the voting shares of CommerceFirst, Bancorp, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 15, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-11721 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN DAVID TORRES

- VASQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71560

Agency No. A203

- 290

- 712

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020 * *

Before: LE A VY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Juan David Torres

- Vasquez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a waiver of inadmissibility

.

We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision denying a

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JUN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71560

waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B), where Torres

- Vasquez

does not raise a colorable due process claim or question of law. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mendoza v. Holder , 623 F.3d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir. 2010). W e

also lack jurisdiction to review Torres

- Vasquez ’s unexhausted contention that the

IJ should have allowed him additional opportunity to submit corroborating

evidence. See Tijani v. Holder , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court

“lack[s] jurisdict ion to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s

administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

Torres

- Vasquez’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED

.
|   |      (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. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |                        |                                      |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   Dated:  May 13, 2011 |   By:   |  /s/ Donald W Prosser                |
|                                       |                        | Donald W Prosser, Chief Executive Officer |
OPINION WITHDRAWN

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,972

EX PARTE JUNIUS SEREAL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 08CR2114 IN THE 405 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM GALVESTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance and sentenced to thirty-two years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction. Sereal v. State, No. 14-10-00594-CR (Tex. App.–Houston [14 ]

th

May 10, 2011). 

Applicant contends that his due process rights were violated because a forensic scientist did

not follow accepted standards when analyzing evidence and therefore the results of his analyses are

unreliable. The State and the trial court agreed that relief was warranted before remand, but the
2

record was insufficient to decide the case at that time. This Court remanded the application to obtain

more information. Specifically, the Court needed three additional pieces of information to resolve

this case: (1) a copy of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) report Applicant was relying on for

his claim; (2) a determination that the lab technician named in that report was the only scientist that

worked on this sample; and (3) a finding as to whether the sample was destroyed or could be

retested. The trial court has now provided this Court with all the information necessary to resolve

this case on the merits. The DPS report shows that the lab technician who was solely responsible

for testing the evidence in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct, and the

evidence in this case has been destroyed and therefore cannot be retested. Applicant is therefore

entitled to relief. 

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 08CR2114 in the 405 District Court of th

Galveston County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Galveston

County. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of

this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: February 27, 2013

Publish

OPINION WITHDRAWN
Exhibit 99.1

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


In connection with the Annual Report of Developed Technology Resource, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
LeAnn C.  Hitchcock,  President,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial
Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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 results of operations of the
     Company.



                                    /s/ LeAnn C. Hitchcock
                                    -----------------------------
                                    LeAnn C. Hitchcock
                                    President, Chief Executive Officer
                                    and Chief Financial Officer
                                    March 25, 2003
EXHIBIT 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

                RALI SERIES 2007-QA3 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects  throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th
day of March 2008.

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Executive Vice President
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                     FRITZ COMPANIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEAR ENDED MAY 31,
                                                              -----------------------------
                                                               1998       1997       1996
                                                              -------    -------    -------
<S>                                                           <C>        <C>        <C>
BASIC:
  Net income................................................  $18,090    $   308    $25,001
  Weighted-average number of common shares outstanding......   35,744     35,128     34,239
  Basic earnings per common share...........................  $  0.51       0.01    $  0.73
                                                              =======    =======    =======
DILUTED:
  Net income................................................  $18,090    $   308    $25,001
SHARES:
  Weighted-average number of common shares outstanding......   35,744     35,128     34,239
  Potentially dilutive common shares........................      384        345      1,034
                                                              -------    -------    -------
          Total shares......................................   36,128     35,473     35,273
  Diluted earnings per common share.........................  $  0.50    $  0.01    $  0.71
                                                              =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>
#### Donald J. Trump et al., Appellants, v Henry Cheng et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted August 10, 2009;

decided October 27, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 623.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the dismissal of all but the expressly severed 18th cause of action, denied; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the remainder of the Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that it does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Each of the undersigned, Alan J. Lacy, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Sears, Roebuck and Co. (the Company)
and Glenn R. Richter, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 27, 2003 (the Report).

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of
operations of the Company.

November 4, 2003

/s/ Alan J. LacyAlan J. Lacy
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Glenn R. RichterGlenn R. Richter
Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John B. Wood, Chief Executive Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation 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 and I are responsible forestablishing 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 oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer 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 registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 11, 2005
656 S.E.2d 425

#### Ernest Leon SELPH, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Record No. 1990-05-2.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Feb. 5, 2008.

In accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court of Virginia entered on November 21, 2007 and the order of that Court entered on November 2, 2007, the opinion previously rendered by a panel of this court on July 18, 2006 is withdrawn, the mandate entered on that date is vacated, and final judgment is entered vacating appellant’s conviction.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 787 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 787

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 
from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to 
provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2005

  Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
   Durbin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. 
  Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Salazar) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 
from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to 
provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. UNIFORM DOLLAR LIMITATION FOR ALL TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION 
              FRINGE BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 132(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to limitation on exclusion) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$100'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
        ``$200'', and
            (2) by striking ``$175'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
        ``$200''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (A) 
of section 132(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
inflation adjustment) is amended--
            (1) by striking the last sentence,
            (2) by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2008'', and
            (3) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2007''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS.

    Section 7905 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2)(C) by inserting ``and'' after 
                the semicolon;
                    (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a period; and
                    (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
            (2) in subsection (b)(2)(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to 
        read as follows:
                    ``(A) a qualified transportation fringe as defined 
                in section 132(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
                1986;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Rodriguez, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 910]

Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered June 1, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The evidence credited by the court established probable cause for defendant’s arrest.

The imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees by way of court documents, but without mention in the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, was lawful *(see People v Harris,*51 AD3d 523 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 935 [2008]). Concur— Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.