alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES ORTEGA-FLORES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-73228

Agency No. A095-728-413

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Andres Ortega-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.

FILED

JUL 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part

the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Ortega-Flores’ motion to reconsider because

we cannot review the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination. See VilchizSoto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order) (“[T]he BIA’s denial of

the motion to reconsider falls outside the court’s jurisdiction because the court

cannot reconsider the discretionary, fact-based determination that petitioners failed

to demonstrate the requisite hardship.”). Although the court retains jurisdiction

over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, Ortega-Flores’

contention that the BIA did not consider all of the hardship factors is not supported

by the record and his equal protection claim is foreclosed by our case law. See

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable

. . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (internal quotations omitted));

Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting equal

protection claim regarding the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American

Relief Act).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortega-Flores’ motion to

reopen where the evidence he submitted was available and could have been

2 13-73228
presented at the time of his previous hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1);

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). 

To the extent Ortega-Flores seeks review of the BIA’s May 28, 2013, order

dismissing his appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not

timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405

(1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3 13-73228
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2:11-cv-01754 (JLL) (JAD)

CIVIL ACTION

[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER 

REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 

AMENDED RESPONSES TO BASF’S 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

THIS MATTER having been opened by BASF’s December 15, 2017 Letter-Motion to 

Compel Plaintiffs to Provide Further Responses to BASF’s Interrogatories;

AND, the Court having ruled on plaintiffs’ objections concerning the scope of 

discovery, plaintiffs’ claims of privilege, and other issues;

AND, plaintiffs having agreed to amend their December 23, 2016 responses to BASF’s 

first set of interrogatories; 

AND, plaintiffs and BASF having agreed to the terms of this Order;

AND, for good cause appearing;

IT IS, this ________ day of December, 2017, hereby:

1. ORDERED that no later than December 29, 2017, plaintiffs shall serve amended 

responses to BASF’s October 23, 2015 first set of interrogatories. Plaintiffs’ amended responses 

shall withdraw objections that have been overruled by the Court, including but not limited to 

objections based on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. Each plaintiff’s 

amended responses shall include information necessary to provide a complete response to each 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 384-12 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 15840
interrogatory; and it is hereby

2. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs and BASF, by consent, may extend the 

deadline for plaintiffs to serve amended responses to BASF’s October 23, 2015 first set of 

interrogatories; and it is hereby

3. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s ruling concerning BASF’s motion to 

compel based on plaintiffs’ responses to BASF’s November 7, 2017 second set of interrogatories 

shall be set forth in a separate order.

Dated: _______________________ _____________________________, 

Hon. Roberto A. Rivera-Soto

Special Master

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 384-12 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 15841
#### Bush *v.*The State.

Simmons, C. J. — Several of the grounds of the motion for a new trial fail to distinctly allege error, and are too vague for consideration; the alleged newly discovered evidence, for aught that appears, was known to at least one of the counsel for the accused before the verdict was rendered; the alleged misconduct of the jury was satisfactorily explained; the evidence fully warranted the verdict for voluntary manslaughter, and on the whole it does not appear that any error authorizing the granting of a new trial was committed.

February 18, 1895.

By two Justices.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Gamble. Washington superior court. September term, 1894.

T. W. Hardwick and J. N. Gilmore, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, B. D. Evans, Jr., solicitor-general, and Harris & Rawlings, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 9, 2010, the foregoing Notice of Motion to 

Amend Complaint, Certification of Counsel with Exhibit and Proposed Order have been filed with 

the Clerk of the Court and served electronically by using the CM/ECF system, upon the following: 

Zoë Eva Jasper, Esq. 

SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP 

33 Wood Avenue South 

Iselin, New Jersey 08830 

732-603-4966 

zjasper@ssbb.com 

Attorneys for Defendants the University of Oxford and Oxford University Development (North America), Inc. 

Bruce S. Rosen, Esq. 

MCCUSKER, ANSELMI, ROSEN & CARVELLI, P.C. 

210 Park Avenue, Suite 301 

P.O. Box 240 

Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 

973-635-6300 

BRosen@marc-law.com 

Attorneys for Defendants ALM Media, LLC, William L. Pollak and Karen Sloan 

Ian S. Marx, Esq. 

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 

973-360-7900 

marxi@gtlaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendants the University of Florida, Board of Trustees, the University of Florida, Levin College of 

Law and Robert H. Jerry, II 

s/ Lennox S. Hinds

Lennox S. Hinds 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 44-4 Filed 12/09/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 813
Case 2:11-cv-01734-SDW -MCA Document 3 Filed 04/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 50
[901 NYS2d 450]

#### Brian Breyre et al., Respondents, v Melissa Meyer, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 16, 2010

*66APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert Petrucci,*New York City, for appellant. *Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP,*New York City, for Brian Breyre and another, respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated September 26, 2008, affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Peter M. Wendt, J., at Civil Court.

We agree that appellant’s alleged attainment of senior citizen status — months after completion of a lengthy trial, entry of an unappealed possessory judgment in landlords’ favor, and landlords’ timely application for a warrant of eviction — did not serve to trigger the equivalent housing provisions of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2524.4 (a) (2). The cited Code section requires a landlord seeking to recover a stabilized apartment for personal use to offer an elderly or disabled “tenant lawfully occupying” the unit “an equivalent or superior housing accommodation at the same or lower regulated rent in a closely proximate area.” (9 NYCRR 2524.4 [a] [2].) As the trial court properly recognized, by the time appellant is said to have turned 62, the parties’ landlord-tenant relationship had long since been severed. In this posture, appellant cannot properly be considered a “tenant lawfully occupying” the stabilized apartment within the meaning of Rent Stabilization Code § 2524.4 (a) (2) *(see generally MH Residential 1, LLC v Barrett,*22 Misc 3d 25 [2008], *lv granted*2009 NY Slip Op 79942[U] [2009]; *cf. Croman v Leighton,*12 Misc 3d 73 [2006]; *Blane v Isles,*142 Misc 2d 1 [1988] [tenant shown to have reached the age of 62 during trial proceedings]). *Matter of McMurray v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal*(72 NY2d 1022 [1988]) is inapposite, since, among other distinguishing features, it concerned not the finality of a court-issued possessory judgment, but an agency-issued certificate of eviction, which, far from self-executing, provides the initial basis for jurisdiction in a subsequent eviction proceeding.

McKeon, EJ., and Schoenfeld, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ZZLL Information Technology Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of knowledge and belief:



(1)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.



Date: May 22,  2017

By :

/s/Sean Webster



Sean Webster

Chief Executive Officer



Date: May 22,  2017

By :

/s/Philip Lo



Philip Lo

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 13

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

TO

SECTION 906

OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of PSi Technologies Holdings, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify to such
officers knowledge that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 20-F)
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: July 15, 2008



|       |  |                            
|------ |  | ---------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/    ARTHUR J. YOUNG,
JR.
|Name:  |  | Arthur J. Young, Jr.       
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer    



|       |  |                                
|------ |  | -------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/    HILARION V. CAJUCOM,
JR.
|Name:  |  | Hilarion V. Cajucom, Jr.       
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-KSB (the
      "Report") of SBD International Inc . (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2006, I, Carl M. Nurse, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




1.
      The
      unaudited 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.


Date:
                  July 30, 2008
              /s/
                  Carl M. NurseCarl
                  M. NurseChief
                  Executive OfficerChief
                  Financial Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
      18 of
      the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as
      a
      separate disclosure document.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v.

KOLE AKINOLA,

 

Criminal Action No.: 11-310 (JLL)

ORDER

LINARES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s newest motion for bond dated

February 29, 2012. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties, the arguments

placed on the record on March 30, 2012, and the recommendation of the Court’s Pretrial Services

Department. Accordingly,

IT IS on this 25 day of April, 2012 th

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for bond is denied. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/ Jose L. Linares 

JOSE L. LINARES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Zhilin LI, certify that:

     1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-KSB of TS  Electronics,
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) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

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

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

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

         a. All significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal  control over financial  reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b. Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: March 27, 2006


 /s/ Zhilin LI
-----------------------
Zhilin LI
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying  Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Grace 1,
Inc. (the  "Company") for the quarter  ending  February 28, 2007, I, Virginia K.
Sourlis,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company
hereby  certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

      1.    Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending February
            28, 2007,  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 such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB
            for the quarter ending February 28, 2007,  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated:  March 21, 2007
Grace 1, Inc.
By: /s/ Virginia K. Sourlis
    -----------------------------
    Chief Executive Officer and
    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cal Dive International, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Quinn J. Hébert, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and G. Kregg Lunsford, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) 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.





Dated:   October 31, 2008









| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ Quinn J. Hébert                  
| | Quinn J. Hébert                      
| | President and
Chief Executive Officer







| |                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ G. Kregg Lunsford                               
| | G. Kregg Lunsford                                   
| | Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 259A17 TENTH DISTRICT

 

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

****************

)

)

) Wake County

) 

)

)

****************

ORDER

Appellant has failed to demonstrate grounds for appellate review under 

N.C.G.S. 7A-27(a)(3) (2017). The appeal in this matter is therefore dismissed.

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 1st day of March, 2018.

s/Morgan, J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this 

the 2nd day of March, 2018.

s/Amy L. Funderburk

AMY L. FUNDERBURK

Clerk of the Supreme Court

IN RE SOUTHEASTERN EYE CENTER –

PENDING MATTERS

________________________________________

IN RE SOUTHEASTERN EYE CENTER –

JUDGMENTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

MICHAEL MUSTICA

:

Plaintiff (s) Civil Action No. 11-2298(JBS/KMW)

:

v.

:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

:

PHUSION PROJECTS, LLC., ET AL

Defendant (s) :

:

It having been reported to the Court that the above-captioned action has been settled;

IT IS on this 1ST day of NOVEMBER, 2012, 

ORDERED THAT:

(1) This action is hereby DISMISSED without costs and without prejudice to the

right, upon motion and good cause shown, within 60 days, to reopen this action if the settlement

is not consummated; and

(2) If any party shall move to set aside this Order of Dismissal as provided in the

above paragraph or pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in deciding such motion

the Court retains jurisdiction of the matter to the extent necessary to enforce the terms and

conditions of any settlement entered into between the parties.

s/ JEROME B. SIMANDLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Hon. Jerome B. Simandle, USDJ

Hon. Karen M. Williams, USMJ

Case 1:11-cv-02298-JBS-KMW Document 26 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 378
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 500

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a permanent 

increase in payment amounts under the Medicare Program for home 

health services furnished in rural areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for a permanent increase in payment amounts under 

the Medicare Program for home health services furnished 

in rural areas.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT INCREASE FOR HOME HEALTH 

4 SERVICES FURNISHED IN A RURAL AREA. 

5 Section 1895(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1395fff(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 

7 new paragraph: 
2

•HR 500 IH 

1 ‘‘(7) INCREASE FOR RURAL AREAS.—In the 

2 case of home health services furnished in a rural 

3 area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D)) on or 

4 after April 1, 2003, the payment amount otherwise 

5 made under this subsection for such services shall be 

6 increased by 10 percent.’’.

Æ