alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rosa Maria GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 07-74077, 11-72034.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2012.

Elias Z. Shamieh, Law Offices of Sham-ieh and Ternieden, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, *706Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

In these consolidated petitions for review, Rosa Maria Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. 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. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss the petition for review in No. 07-74077, and deny the petition for review in No. 11-72034.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Gonzalez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. *See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009). Gonzalez’s contention that the agency erred by failing to consider hardship to her eldest daughter is belied by the record.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice. *Mohammed,*400 F.3d at 793-94 (prejudice results when counsel’s actions may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

We need not reach Gonzalez’s remaining contentions in light of these conclusions.

In No. 07-74077: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

In No. 11-72034: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5122 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5122

To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit members 
 of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to serve for 2 
                                 terms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2004

  Mr. Ney (for himself and Mr. Larson of Connecticut) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit members 
 of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to serve for 2 
                                 terms.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING SECOND TERM FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OFFICE OF 
              COMPLIANCE.

    (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 301(e)(1) of the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381(e)(1)) is 
amended to read as follows: ``A member of the Board may be reappointed, 
but no individual may serve as a member for more than 2 terms.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to individuals serving on the Board of Directors of 
the Office of Compliance on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES ANNUAL AVERAGES

35. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(In thousands)

Category

Total Age Sex

2007 2008

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

Total not in the labor force .................................... 78,743 79,501 15,192 15,452 21,343 21,255 42,207 42,794 30,036 30,593 48,707 48,908

 Do not want a job now 1 ..................................... 74,040 74,519 13,510 13,719 19,256 19,087 41,275 41,712 27,914 28,365 46,126 46,154

 Want a job 1 ........................................................ 4,703 4,983 1,683 1,733 2,088 2,168 933 1,082 2,122 2,228 2,581 2,755

 Did not search for work in previous year .......... 2,748 2,826 931 913 1,148 1,145 668 768 1,173 1,187 1,575 1,639

 Searched for work in previous year 2 ............... 1,955 2,157 751 819 939 1,023 264 314 950 1,041 1,005 1,115

 Not available to work now ............................... 560 543 272 252 234 244 53 48 223 214 336 329

 Available to work now 3 .................................. 1,395 1,614 479 568 705 780 211 266 726 827 669 787

 Reason not currently looking:

 Discouragement over job prospects 4 ........ 369 462 110 145 199 226 61 90 226 282 143 180

 Reasons other than discouragement .......... 1,026 1,152 370 422 506 554 150 176 500 545 526 607

 Family responsibilities .............................. 160 171 31 35 109 111 21 25 37 45 123 126

 In school or training .................................. 180 218 149 173 27 42 3 3 102 108 78 109

 Ill health or disability ................................. 114 124 11 16 66 68 37 40 57 55 58 69

 Other 5 ...................................................... 572 640 178 199 304 332 90 108 305 337 267 303

1 Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job. 2 Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched

since the end of that job. 3 Persons who have searched for work in the previous year and are

available to work now also are referred to as "marginally attached to the

labor force." 4 Includes believes no work available, could not find work, lacks

necessary schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and

other types of discrimination. 5 Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks

for such reasons as child care and transportation problems, as well as a

small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

 NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the

release of January data.

247
Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 80 Filed 03/22/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 434
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

                  (Letterhead of Timothy M. Griffiths, C.P.A.)








Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
450  Fifth  Street,  N.W.
Washington,  D.C.  20549

Re:     Resolve  Staffing,  Inc.
        Form  10-KSB

Gentlemen:

I  consent to the incorporation on my report as independent auditor accompanying
the  audited  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Resolve  Staffing,  Inc.,
formerly  Columbialum  Staffing, Inc., as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for
the  years then ended, issued in connection with Resolve Staffing, Inc.'s annual
report  filed  with  the  Securities  Act  of  1934  under  cover of Form 10-KSB


Very  truly  yours,


/s/  Timothy  M.  Griffiths, CPA

Timothy M. Griffiths
Certified Public Accountant
Tampa, Florida
March 26, 2003

<PAGE>
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of W2 Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
McLaren, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:      November
      17, 2008
            /s/ 
      Michael McLarenBy:  Michael
      McLarenIts:  President








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
W2 Energy, Inc. and will be retained by W2 Energy, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### ZHONG QIN ZHENG, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 12-2649.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 18, 2013.

Filed: April 5, 2013.

Zhong Qin Zheng, Lebanon, PA, pro se.

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Brooke Maurer, Andrew Oliveira, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Zhong Quin Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. After careful review, we conclude that the BIA acted within its discretion. *See Averianova v. Holder,*592 F.3d 931, 936 (8th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v.

BAHADIR YAHSI,

 

Criminal Action No.: 11-353 (JLL)

ORDER

LINARES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second

superseding indictment [Docket Entry No. 50]. For the reasons placed on the record on April 2,

2012,

IT IS on this 2 day of April, 2012, nd

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second superseding indictment is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Jose L. Linares 

JOSE L. LINARES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 73 Filed 04/03/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 760
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ASTRAZENECA AB, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HANMI USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-760 (JAP)

ORDER

This matter having been opened to the Court upon Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB,

Aktiebolaget Hassle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI Inc. and KBI-E Inc.’s (collectively, “AstraZeneca”)

motion to amend their Disclosure of Asserted Claims; and Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc., Hanmi

Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd.

(collectively, “Hanmi”) having opposed AstraZeneca’s motion; and the Court having reviewed

all of the arguments made in support of and in opposition to AstraZeneca’s motion; and the Court

having considered AstraZeneca’s motion without oral argument pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 78;

and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order; and

for good cause shown, 

IT IS on this 14 day of November, 2011, th

ORDERED that AstraZeneca’s motion to amend their Disclosure of Asserted Claims is

GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that AstraZeneca shall serve its Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims no

later than November 21, 2011; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposed new schedule to govern this

matter no later than November 30, 2011; and it is further

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 139 Filed 11/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 4825
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court terminate the aforementioned motion [Docket

Entry No. 81] accordingly.

s/Tonianne J. Bongiovanni 

HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 139 Filed 11/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 4826
Case 2:10-cv-06482-SDW -MCA Document 4 Filed 03/03/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 29
Case 2:10-cv-06482-SDW -MCA Document 4 Filed 03/03/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 30
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 controls 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; andd)
    
    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.
  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: August 13, 2008
    By:
    /s/ David R. AllenDavid R. AllenChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:

     o  Registration Statement No. 333-12976 on Form S-8;

     o  Registration Statement No. 333-113054 on Form S-8; and

     o  Registration Statement No. 333-109783 on Form F-10

of our reports dated February 11, 2005 (which audit report expresses an
unqualified opinion on the financial statements and includes Comments by
Auditors For U.S. Readers on Canada - U.S. Reporting Differences relating to
changes in accounting principles that have a material effect on the
comparability of the financial statements and changes that have been implemented
in the financial statements), relating to the financial statements of Ivanhoe
Energy Inc. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ivanhoe Energy Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2004.

(signed) Deloitte & Touche LLP

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
March 9, 2005
Case 3:04-cv-04100-PGS-DEA Document 250 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 6092
Case 3:04-cv-04100-PGS-DEA Document 250 Filed 11/18/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 6093
#### Church *v.*Spiegelburg and another.

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

July 26, 1887.)

1. Counter Claim—Action upon Contract.

In an action for breach of a contract of partnership, defendant’s answer set up a. counter-claim, alleging that the plaintiff failed to bring to the firm the amount, and kind of business he had agreed to. *Held,*that under section 501, Code Civil Proc. N. Y., the cause of action set forth in the complaint arising on contract, the counter-claim, which also arose on contract, might be sot up.

3. Courts—Following State Practice—Equitable Counter-Claim—Action at Law.

In such a case, a counter-claim set up in the answer was for an accounting and adjustment of the affairs of the partnership. *Held,*that an equitable defense. though admissible in a slate court, cannot be interposed to an action at law, in an action at- law in the United States courts, notwithstanding the provision of Kev. St. § 914, that, in causes other than those in admiralty and equity, the practice of the state courts shall be followed.

*602At Law. Action to recover damages for breach of contract. On motion to strike out counter-claims.

*J. E. Hayward,*for plaintiff.

*Seligman & Seligman,*for defendant.

Lacombe, J.

Plaintiff and defendant heretofore formed a copartnership for the purpose of carrying on the dry goods commission business in the city of New York. By the terms of their articles of copartnership, defendants were to furnish $120,000 capital, and plaintiff was to bring to the firm what is known as “commission business,” amounting to about $1,000,000 per annum. The complaint avers that the plaintiff fulfilled his obligations under the articles, but that the defendants, “in violation of their duties to plaintiff and to said firm,” wrote to certain manufacturers, whose business plaintiff had secured, repudiating existing contracts with them, and making false representations as to the inability of the firm to malm advances on goods consigned to them, to the great damage of the firm and of the plaintiff. The amended answer of the defendants sets up, *inter alia,*two counter-claims, which plaintiff now moves to strike out. The complaint indicates that this is a common-law action on contract. As such, the sufficiency of the pleading is to be tested by the rules of the state courts. Rev. St. § 914. The first counter-claim is for a breach of the contract of partnership by the plaintiff, in that, as alleged, he failed to bring to the firm the amount and kind of commission business which he had agreed to. The cause of action set forth in the complaint arising on contract, the counter-claim, which also arises on contract, may be set up. Code, § 501. The second counter-claim is for an accounting and adjustment of the affairs of the partnership. This is an equitable cause of action, and section 914 of the Revised Statutes has been construed as not allowing the interposition of equitable defenses in a legal action. *Montejo*v. *Owen,*14 Blatchf. 324; *Parsons*v. *Denis,*7 Fed. Rep. 317.

The motion to strike out the *second*counter-claim is therefore granted, that to strike out the *first*counter-claim is denied.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5204

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To amend section 340E of the Public Health Service Act 

(relating to children’s hospitals) to modify provisions regarding the determination of the amount of payments 

for indirect expenses associated with operating approved 

graduate medical residency training programs.
2

HR 5204 RDS 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISREGARD OF NEWBORN BASSINETS IN CAL4 CULATING CASE MIX FOR RECEIPT BY CHIL5 DREN’S HOSPITALS OF FUNDING FOR GRAD6 UATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 340E(d) of the Public 

8 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256e(d)) is amended—

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘related to’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘associated with’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (2)(A)—

12 (A) by inserting ‘‘ratio of the’’ after ‘‘hos13 pitals and the’’; and 

14 (B) by inserting at the end before the 

15 semicolon ‘‘to beds (but excluding beds or bassi16 nets assigned to healthy newborn infants)’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 subsection (a) shall apply to payments for periods begin19 ning with fiscal year 2005.

Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
CDI-2012 12 31 - EX10.33






Exhibit 10.33
CDI Corporation
Second Amendment to Employment and Consulting Agreement


This is the second Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement) entered into as of February 15, 2009, and previously amended effective December 16, 2010, between CDI Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), and Robert J. Giorgio (the “Executive”).
In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	The term of Executive’s employment as President of the Company’s Global Engineering and Technology Solutions business shall be extended from December 31, 2012 to June 30, 2013 (the “Extension Period”).  The parties may, at their respective discretion, agree to extend the Extension Period for up to another six-month period on the same terms as set forth herein (any such extension shall be considered a part of the Extension Period).  The Employment Period under the Agreement shall include the Extension Period.


		
	2.
	During the Extension Period the Executive’s compensation shall be as follows:  (a) base salary at the per annum rate provided in the Agreement which shall be pro-rated based on length of  service during the Extension Period and shall be paid in the same manner set forth in the Agreement; (b) bonus at the same level provided in the Agreement which shall be pro-rated based on length of service during the Extension Period and the performance targets and the Executive’s achievement of those performance targets will be based on performance during the Extension Period, as determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of CDI Corp.; and (c) employee benefits and withholding as set forth in the Agreement.  Any bonus shall be paid following the filing of the financial results in a quarterly report that include the entire Extension Term and otherwise in the manner set forth in the Agreement.


		
	3.
	The Consulting Period shall be the period beginning on the first day following the end of the Extension Term and ending on December 31, 2014.  The minimum day requirements provided in the Agreement shall remain at the same levels for each year.


		
	4.
	In the event of Executive’s Retirement as provided in the Executive’s outstanding Stock Appreciation Rights Agreements, the Executive shall have until December 31, 2014 to exercise such awards.


		
	5.
	All other provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of December 31, 2012.
	
				
	Company:
	 
	Executive:

	CDI CORPORATION
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Paulett Eberhart
	 
	/s/ Robert J. Giorgio

	 
	Paulett Eberhart
	 
	Robert J. Giorgio