alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 2314

HANNATU SHEHU

,

Petitioner

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : June 25, 2020 Decided: July 14, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mariam Masumi, JOHNSON & MASUMI, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph

H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Margot L.

Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel, O ffice of Immigration Litigation, Civil D ivision,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Hannatu Shehu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of

the Board o f Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. Shehu

challenges only the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte power to reopen her removal

proceedings. However, it is well

- settled that we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s

decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen . See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826

F.3d 198, 206

- 07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400

- 01 (4th Cir.

2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument

be cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50878

NETSPEND CORP.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY and AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CV-456

Before JONES, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 2012, NetSpend Corporation (NetSpend) was sued in Texas state 

court. NetSpend did not initially request a defense of that suit pursuant to a 

professional liability insurance policy with AXIS Insurance Company and 

AXIS Surplus Insurance Company (collectively, AXIS). Only after a second 

amended petition was filed in the lawsuit did NetSpend request that Axis fund 

the defense. AXIS denied the request on the ground that the claim was 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50878 Document: 00513117769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-50878

2

untimely because it was not reported during the policy period (or extended 

reporting period) when the state court suit was first filed. 

NetSpend subsequently sued AXIS in state court, while proceeding to 

defend the underlying litigation at its own expense. NetSpend alleged breach 

of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of 

the Texas Insurance Code. AXIS removed to federal court, and the parties filed 

cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary 

judgment in favor of AXIS, holding that the original petition in the underlying 

litigation constituted a covered “claim” within the meaning of the policy and

that NetSpend thus was required to report that claim during the first policy 

period in order to secure coverage. 

The sole question on appeal is whether the original petition filed in the 

state court case constituted a “Claim arising out of a Wrongful Act” that 

triggered NetSpend’s obligation to seek defense costs from its insurer. 

We have carefully reviewed that operative petition and incorporated 

attachments. We have also considered the parties’ briefs and the applicable 

legal authorities and heard oral argument from both sides. The judgment is 

AFFIRMED essentially for the reasons given by the district court. 

 Case: 14-50878 Document: 00513117769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 14, 2015

Order 

July 14, 2015

148898-9(122)

JEANNE HARRISON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

MUNSON HEALTHCARE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

SURGICAL ASSOCIATES OF TRAVERSE CITY, 

P.L.L.C., WILLIAM P. POTTHOFF, M.D., and 

CINDY GILLIAND, R.N.,

Defendants,

and

THOMAS R. HALL,

Appellee.

SC: 148898-9

COA: 304512, 304539

Grand Traverse CC: 

2009-027611-NH

__________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant for leave to file a 

reply in support of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The reply submitted 

on July 2, 2015, is accepted for filing.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15287]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,547]


Arvin Meritor, Mullins, SC; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 10, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by workers of Arvin Meritor, Mullins, South Carolina.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15287 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
@misc{102601,
  author = {Vincent Hackley and Chiara Ferraris},
  title = {NIST Recommended Practice Guide: The Use of Nomenclature in Dispersion Science and Technology},
  year = {2001},
  month = {2001-08-01},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=850489},
  language = {en},
}
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997             
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997              
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997               
<CASH>                          331143               
<SECURITIES>                    0               
<RECEIVABLES>                   9011373               
<ALLOWANCES>                    28614               
<INVENTORY>                     0               
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0               
<PP&E>                          0               
<DEPRECIATION>                  0               
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  10331362              
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0               
<BONDS>                         0               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           899909               
<PREFERRED>                     0               
<COMMON>                        0               
<OTHER-SE>                      9431453               
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    10331362              
<SALES>                         0               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1036596               
<CGS>                           0               
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   105731               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0              
<LOSS-PROVISION>                268101             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              133577               
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 529187               
<INCOME-TAX>                    0               
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             529187               
<DISCONTINUED>                  0              
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0               
<CHANGES>                       0               
<NET-INCOME>                    529187               
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .00              
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .00               
        


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 1 0 1 4

- C R

Style: Marcell Lamont Kennedy v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : January 26 , 201 6

Type of motion s : First Unopposed M otion for Extension of Time to File Brief

Part ies filing motion s : Appell ant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: N/A (Clerk’s Record not yet filed)

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due D ate: N/A

Date Requested: March 1, 2016 (32 days from January 29, 2016 )

Ordered that motion i s :

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Denied without prejudice

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

On December 18, 2015, the trial clerk filed a corrected assignment le tter in this Court

noting that the notice of appeal was filed on November 18, 2015, but a motion for new

trial was filed on November 30, 2015, which sets the appellate record deadline to 120

days after the date sentence was imposed on October 29, 2015, or by February 26,

2016. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 35.2(b). Thus, appellant’s motion f o r an extension of time

to file appellant’s brief is denied as premature without prejudice to refiling because,

a l though the reporter’s record w as filed on December 10, 2015, the briefing deadlines

do not begin until after the appellate record is complete, and the clerk’s record is to be

filed by February 26, 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 38.6(a)(1).

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting individually

Date: February 2, 2016
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chairman of the Board of
Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of Stem Cell Therapy International, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six months ended September 30, 2009, (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                |  |                                                                           |  |                  
|--------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Signature       |  | Title                                                                     |  | Date             
|                |  |                                                                          
|/s/ David Stark |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer |  | November 13, 2009
|David Stark     |  |                                                                           |  |                  



31
#### Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. *v.*Texas *&*P. Ry. Co., (Schmidt, Intervenor.)1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.*

January *2,*1888.)

Railroad' Companies—Negligence—Fires—Keueiíence

Where a claim is filed against defendant railroad company for damages by fire originating from their locomotives, and the evidence proved the cause of the fire' as alleged, and the damages as allowed by the master, and there was no evidence in the record to rebut, tbe presumption of negligence, the finding of the master should be confirmed.

In Equity. On exceptions to master’s report.

Joseph Schmidt filed a claim against the receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company for damages caused by the destruction of millet by fire caught from a locomotive operated on the railway. The master’s final report was:

“That on the fifteenth day of December, 1886, and at Paris, Tex., he took testimony, and on the twentieth of said month reported thereon, in the matter of Joseph Schmidt, claimant, for a quantity of millet destroyed by fire; that in the taking, on the twenty-second of September, 1887, of the evidence, digested in the Latimer Report (No. 238) next preceding this, it appeared that *362the same Are visited the premises, both of said Joseph Schmidt and D. IT. Latimer, against the former of whom a disallowance was, and to the latter of whom an allowance is, recommended; that this variance is due to evidence submitted in the more recent hearing, warranting a conclusion against said receivers, and identifying the Are in both cases as one incident. Wherefore, no action having been taken upon said report No. 108, the master reconsiders it, in view of the said later evidence, and recommends an allowance in compensation for the loss of said Joseph Schmidt, while absent from the scene, in the measure of 20 tons of millet, at $12 per ton, or $240, to be paid when lie-shall have executed a receipt to the receivers in full of all damages sustained.”

The receivers excepted to the findings of the report, on the grounds .that the facts did not establish a presumption of negligence against them; that the claimant was not entitled to recover the amount allowed him, •the evidence not showing that the alleged injuries were a legal basis for any recovery by him; and that the evidence and reports, in the matter of the claim, show that the neglect of the claimant contributed to the alleged injury.

*W. W. Howe,*for receivers.

1

 Reported by Charles B. Stafford, Esq., oí the New Orleans bar.

Pardee, J.

The intervention is a claim for damages caused by a fire originating from the railway locomotives operated by the receivers. The evidence proves the cause of the fire as alleged by the intervenor, and the damages as allowed b)7 the master, and there is no evidence in the record to rebut the presümption of negligence. If this class of fire claims are to be resisted by the receivers, their attention is called to the case of *Railroad Co.*v. *Benson, 5*S. W. Rep. 822.

Let the exceptions be overruled, and the report be confirmed.
@article{1207251,
  author = {Saadi Habib and Steven P. Mates and Fan Zhang and Mark R. Stoudt and James Zuback and Olaf Borkiewicz},
  title = {Effect of austenite fraction and stability on strength-hardening-ductility in additively manufactured 17-4 PH stainless steel containing nitrogen},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-30 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Materials Science and Engineering A},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935804},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2023.145180 },
  language = {en},
}
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anonymous, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 116]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered on or about September 8, 2005, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00118-CV

In re BLF LLC, Bradford W. Bayliff, and Lisa E.W. Bayliff

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BLANCO COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We previously granted relator’s motion for temporary relief and stayed 

portions of the trial court’s March 17, 2023, order relating to the expunction of a lis pendens.

The temporary stay is lifted, and the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex.

R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne and Justices Triana and Theofanis

Filed: April 21, 2023
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - February 2006 

Benefit payments February 2006 February 2005 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

22,647,000 

93,622,000 

156,856,000 

$785,190,000 

512,066,000 

22,290,000 

91,157,000 

156,135,000 

$762,906,000 

493,324,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month February 2006 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 592,000 ......... 2,600 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 281,800 $1,804 1,100 $2,285 ......... .........

 Age 197,800 1,764 2 400 2 2,823 $1,005 3 $1,348

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,500 1,609 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 49,400 2,103 300 2,348 939 993 

Spouses and divorced spouses 140,100 663 800 790 485 357 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 142,700 1,097 700 1,458 951 793 

Widowed mothers and fathers 900 1,382 4/ 1,280 716 716 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,600 735 100 881 5/ 5/ 

Children 11,700 823 4/ 1,069 658 662 

Other survivors 100 794 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

February 

2006 

$5,143,000 

February 

2005 

$5,219,000 

Number 

122,600 

Average 

$42 500 

Number 

$41 

Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 34); some 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

February 2006 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 3,400 $495 $277 

Sickness 5,900 

February 2006 

481 278 

Benefit payments 

February 2005 

Unemployment

Total 

3,248,000 

$6,309,000 $4,828,000

3,253,000 

Sickness 3,061,000 1,574,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

 Recycled

 Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fred A. Brasch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report
on Form 10Q of Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. for the three month period ending September 30, 2007.

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)) for the registrant and we 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 is made known to us by others within that entity, 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;

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 .



|                              
|------------------------------
|Date: November 1, 2007        
|/s/ Fred A. Brasch            
|Name: Fred A. Brasch          
|Title: Chief Financial Officer