alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Amir ALI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-60887.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 7, 2006.

Amir Ali, El Paso, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, John S. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Caryl G. Thompson, Washington, DC, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Luis Garcia, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Director’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Respondent.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Amir Ali petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Ali contends that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen, which raised the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request voluntary departure on his behalf. Ah has abandoned the remaining ineffective-assistance claims raised in his motion to reopen by failing to argue them in his petition for review. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); *Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir .2003).

We review the denial of a motion to reopen under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir.2005). Our review of constitutional challenges is de novo. *Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales,*435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir.2006). Likewise, we review de novo the BIA’s legal conclusions. *Singh v. Gonzales,*436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir.2006).

“ ‘[T]he failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in nature does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest.’ ” *Assaad v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). A request for voluntary departure is a request for discretionary relief. *Eyoum v. INS,*125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir.1997). Even if Ali had a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during the immigration proceedings, he had no due process right to effective assistance of counsel in pursuit of discretionary relief. *Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan,*461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir.2006); *Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft,*349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir.2003). Ali’s argument that his case is distinguishable from *Assaad*because he “was unable to even request the relief’ is unavailing. *Cf. Gutierrez-Morales,*461 F.3d at 609-10 (holding that alien has no due process right to effective assistance of counsel in seeking to present waiver application— *469purely discretionary relief — to the Immigration Judge or the BIA on its merits).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 31(a)

CERTIFICATIONS

 
I, J. Wayne Leonard, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) 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   
d) 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 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 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.

 

		/s/ J. Wayne Leonard
<PAGE> 71
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                     Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                     Form 10-K Year Ended December 31, 2004
                                   EXHIBIT 11




                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS




                                                      -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Year Ended December 31
                                                      -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2004                 2003                 2002
                                                      -----------------    -----------------    -----------------
<S>                                                    <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Basic:
  Average number of Class A and
   Class B shares outstanding                               14,641,300           14,562,310           14,609,727
                                                      =================    =================    =================

  Net income                                               $30,305,585          $33,075,554          $12,365,636
                                                      =================    =================    =================

  Per Share Amount                                              $ 2.07               $ 2.27               $ 0.85
                                                      =================    =================    =================


Diluted:
  Average number of Class A and
   Class B shares outstanding                               14,641,300           14,562,310           14,609,727

  Dilutive stock options--based on
    treasury stock method using higher
    of average or year end market prices                       147,824              135,659              104,168
                                                      -----------------    -----------------    -----------------
                                              TOTALS        14,789,124           14,697,969           14,713,895
                                                      =================    =================    =================

  Net income                                               $30,305,585          $33,075,554          $12,365,636
                                                      =================    =================    =================

  Per Share Amount                                              $ 2.05               $ 2.25               $ 0.84
                                                      =================    =================    =================

<FN>
NOTE:  All share, per share and option amounts reflect a five-for-four stock split, effective Feburary 17, 2003.
</FN>
</TABLE>
#### Stanley *v.*Board of Sup’rs of Albany County.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

-, 1880.)

1. Jurisdiction op Circuit Court—Suit by Assignee—Act op March 3, 1875—Under the act of March. 3, 1875, no circuit court can assume jurisdiction of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been, made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the law merchant and bills of exchange, even in cases where no plea has been interposed to the jurisdiction, nor objection taken to the jurisdiction either upon the trial or argument.—[Ed.

*Jackson*v. *Ashton,*8 Pet. 148.

Wallace, D. J.

The complaint in this action must be dismissed because the court has no jurisdiction of the controversy it discloses. The action is for money had and received, *255and is brought by the plaintiff as the assignee of Chauncey P. Williams, who, as appears by the complaint, was a resident of the city of Albany, in this state. The action involves the right of the defendant to retain certain sums of money collected as taxes which the plaintiff alleges were illegally exacted. By the act of congress of March 8,1875, it is provided that- no circuit court shall have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in eases of promissory notes negotiable by the law merchant and bills of exchange. This act modifies section 11 of the act of September 24, 1789, known, as the judiciary act, hut not in a manner to affect the present question. The plaintiff’s assignor could not have prosecuted the suit because he was a citizen of the same state with the defendant.

This disposition of the case cannot be obviated by the fact that the defendant has not interposed a plea to the jurisdiction, or objected to the jurisdiction upon the trial or argument. The objection would be fatal whenever and wherever raised. In *Jackson*v. *Ashton,*8 Pet. 148, the supreme court reversed the decree of the court below, and dismissed the appeal when it did not appear in the bill of complaint that the parties were citizens of different states, although the counsel for the appellee was anxious that the court should hear and determine the case, and waived the objection.

The court is not permitted to take cognizance of the controversy which has been brought before it.

The complaint is dismissed according1}-.
Exhibit 10.3


MISCELLANEOUS FRINGE BENEFITS FOR EXECUTIVES
--------------------------------------------




BLANKET TRAVEL ACCIDENT INSURANCE
---------------------------------

For those employees who are required to travel in carrying out their job
responsibilities, the Company provides at no cost a travel accident insurance
plan. The coverage is based on position and title with Vice Presidents insured
for $250,000 and the Chairman of the Board for $400,000. This plan provides
coverage for accidental death while traveling and while away from home on
Company business.



PERSONAL EXCESS LIABILITY POLICIES
----------------------------------

The Company reimburses certain executive officers for the cost of personal
excess liability policies.


                                       98
#### Sharlene McKenzie, as Executrix of Oscar McKenzie, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v Onondaga County et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 20, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion to vacate this Court’s July 27, 2012 dismissal order granted *[see*19 NY3d 970 (2012)]. On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### In the Matter of Christopher W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[609 NYS2d 194]

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.), entered November 23, 1992, which adjudged that appellant committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree, and placed him in a Division for Youth facility for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The 911 tape, in which a nontestifying civilian reported the crime, was not *Rosario*material, notwithstanding that the non-witness was presumably relaying information from the complainant, because the tape was not a "written or recorded statement” by a testifying witness (Family Ct Act § 331.4 [1] [a]; *Matter of Andrew T.,*182 AD2d 630, *lv denied*80 NY2d 757). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<LEGEND> THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CORPORATIONS FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

      <MULTIPLIER> 1

      <S>                           <C>
      <PERIOD-TYPE>                      QUARTER
      <FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC 30-1998
      <PERIOD-END>                  JUNE 30-1998
      <CASH>                                  0
      <SECURITIES>                        2,000
      <RECEIVABLES>                           0
      <ALLOWANCES>                            0
      <INVENTORY>                             0
      <CURRENT ASSETS>                        0
      <PP&E>                                  0
      <DEPRECIATION>                          0
      <TOTAL ASSETS>                      2,000
      <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              77,368
      <BONDS>                                 0
      <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
      <PREFERRED>                             0
      <COMMON>                            2,257
      <OTHER-SE>                        <77,625>
      <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        2,000
      <SALES>                                 0
      <TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
      <CGS>                                   0
      <TOTAL COSTS>                           0
      <OTHER EXPENSES>                        0
     <LOSS PROVISION>                         0
      <INTEREST EXPENSE>                      0
      <INCOME PRETAX>                         0
      <INCOME-TAX>                            0
      <INCOME CONTINUING>                     0
      <DISCONTINUED>                          0
      <EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
      <CHANGES>                               0
      <NET-INCOME>                            0
      <EPS-BASIC>                           0
      <EPS-DILUTED>                           0
Order entered August 29, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-01495-CR

JONATHAN BRUCE REED, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F81-01988-K

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for en banc 

reconsideration. We GRANT the motion. Appellant’s time to file a motion for en banc 

reconsideration is extended to October 18, 2013.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY 

JUSTICE
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***TIER C-DROP AND COUNT (CDC)***

Page 31 of 35
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 Web2 Corp (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB
      for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darren Cioffi, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to ss. 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/
      Darren Cioffi


Darren
      Cioffi


Chief
      Financial Officer


May
      17,
      2007





A
      signed
      original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket ID: DOD-2009-OS-0086]

# AGENCY:

National Security Agency/Central Security Service.

# ACTION:

Notice to delete a System of Records.

# SUMMARY:

The National Security Agency/Central Security Service is deleting a system of records notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

# DATES:

This proposed action would be effective without further notice on July 16, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Office of Policy, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6248.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Anne Hill at (301) 688-6527.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The National Security Agency's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                

The National Security Agency/Central Security Service is deleting a system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Dated: June 8, 2009.

Morgan E. Frazier,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

## GNSA 11

### System name:

NSA/CSS Time, Attendance and Absence (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10531).

### Reason:

The records contained in this system of records are covered by GNSA 08, NSA/CSS Payroll Processing File (June 8, 2009, 74 FR 27114).

[FR Doc. E9-14096 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
<PAGE>

                                                               Medicore, Inc.

August 12, 1997

Mr. Dennis W. Healey
Executive Vice President
Viragen, Inc.
865 S.W. 78th Ave., Suite 100
Plantation, Florida 33324

Dear Dennis:

Pursuant to Section 6 of the lease between Viragen, Inc. and Medicore,
Inc. entered into on December 8, 1992, Medicore, Inc. will exercise its
first renewal option under the lease for which the original term expires
December 31, 1997.  This letter represents Medicore, Inc.'s notification
to Viragen, Inc. that it is exercising the first renewal option for an
additional 5 years.

Please acknowledge receipt of this notification by signing and dating the
acknowledgment and returning one copy.

Yours very truly,

/s/ Daniel R. Ouzts

Daniel R. Ouzts
Vice President/Finance

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT:

  /s/ Dennis W. Healey               8/14/97
------------------------           -----------
     Dennis W. Healey                 Date
        Exec. V.P.






2337 West 76th Street, Hialeah, Florida 33016 . (305) 558-4000
Exhibit 31.2 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, Michael P. Conroy, certify that: 

    1.                 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Technology          Systems, Inc.; 

    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: