alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Victor Hugo Ballesteros MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-75790.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Victor Hugo Ballesteros Martinez, Ontario, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., Liza S. Murcia, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Hugo Ballesteros Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial, as untimely and without merit, of his motion to reopen proceedings in order to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) following the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Ballesteros Martinez contends that his motion to reopen was timely because there is no time limit for motions to reopen that seek relief under CAT and because he only recently became aware of “widespread torture” in Mexico. Ballesteros Martinez filed his motion to reopen outside the ninety-day time limit set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In addition, he failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions that was not available and could not have been presented at the previous proceeding. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii); *He v. Gonzales,*501 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.2007).

Ballesteros Martinez also contends that the Board erred in concluding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under CAT. The generalized evidence attached to his motion did not meet this standard. *See Nuru v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that CAT applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country); *Ordonez v. INS,*345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that motion to reopen must establish prima facie case demonstrating reasonable likelihood that *982requirements for relief have been satisfied).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVID ED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Bryan L. Mulligan, Respondent,

v. State of South Carolina, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2013-002130

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal From Dorchester County Carmen T. Mullen, Ci rcuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-024 Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed April 29, 2015

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Megan E. Harrigan, both of Columbia, for Petitioner. Tara Dawn Shurling, of Law Office of Tara Dawn Shurling, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the grant of Respondent's applica tion for post-conviction relief (PCR). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
ex10-2.htm


EX10.2





December 29, 2011







[Name]


[Address]












Re:           Exercise of Warrants dated November 13, 2009







Dear ____________________________:







We are contacting you as a holder of warrants to purchase common stock, $0.01 par value per share (“Common Stock”), of Echo Therapeutics, Inc. (“Echo”) at an exercise price per share of $1.60 (each, a “Warrant”).







The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, if you elect to exercise all or any portion of your Warrant for cash during the period beginning on the date of this letter and ending on December 30, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. EDT (the “Election Period”), then, in consideration for such voluntary exercise, Echo will amend that number of Warrants you exercise for cash (each, an “Amended Warrant”) such that the exercise price of each Amended Warrant will be $0.50 per share.







If you wish to exercise all or any portion of your Warrants for cash during the Election Period and receive the corresponding reduction in the exercise price of such Warrants, please sign below and return (1) a copy of this letter and (2) a completed Exercise Notice for your Warrants (found at the end of each Warrant) to Kimberly Burke, Echo’s General Counsel, via email at kburke@echotx.com no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, December 30, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. EDT.  A wire for the aggregate amount of the exercise price also must be received
by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, December 30, 2011. 







If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Burke by email at kburke@echotx.com.







Regards,







/s/ Patrick T. Mooney







Patrick T. Mooney


Chief Executive Officer and President




 


Acknowledged and agreed to this ___ day of December, 2011:


 







Name of Warrant Holder: _______________________________________







Signature:  ___________________________________________________







Print name of signatory: _________________________________________







No. of Warrants to be exercised: ___________________________________

















Echo Therapeutics, Inc.    8 Penn Center    1628 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300    Philadelphia, PA 19103    p: 215.717.4100    f: 215.717.4109
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certification of CFO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a – 14 and 15d – 14 as****Adopted Pursuant toSection 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Sherry A. Sturman, the Chief Financial Officer of OrthoLogic Corp., certifythat:
1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OrthoLogic Corp.;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, 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 respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 14, 2003 /s/ Sherry A. SturmanSherry A. SturmanChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-Q (continued)

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                              March 31,
                                                       2007              2006
                                               ------------------  ------------------
                                                (In thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                            <C>                 <C>
BASIC

Net Income                                     $              658  $              703
/ Weighted Average Shares                                   3,982               4,004
                                               ------------------  ------------------

Basic Earnings Per Share                       $             0.17  $             0.18
                                               ==================  ==================

DILUTED

Net Income                                     $              658  $              703
/ Weighted Average Shares                                   4,043               4,078
                                               ------------------  ------------------
Diluted Earnings Per Share                     $             0.16  $             0.17
                                               ==================  ==================
</TABLE>

----------

*Per share data has been retroactively adjusted to stock dividends.

                                       34
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 31 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 19
- 00775
- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CLARENCE DAVID SINGLETARY AND CASSANDRA MARIE JOHNSON
On Appeal from the 309th D istrict Court

Harris Cou nt y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014
- 66873

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appe al from a judgment signed J u ne 25, 2016

. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on July 22, 2019

. Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was filed September 30, 2019

. The noti ce of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed when appellant has not filed a timely post

- judgment motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1

. Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of time is necessarily im pl ied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed b y Texas Rule of Appellate2

Procedure 26.1, but within the 15

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. D or ner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617

– 18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15

- day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3

. On November 25, 2019 , notification was transmitted to all pa rties of the
court ’ s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex . R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant ’ s response fails to demonstrate that this c ourt has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal

. T he appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourl iot

.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 20, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

135289 (31) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

EDWARD GUOAN, #246473 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 135289 

 CoA: 277823 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $6.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$369.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 20, 2007 

Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 00-10520

_______________________

JOE CARRABBA, JR., Individually & on behalf of all others similarly

situated; JOE MELTON, Individually & on behalf of all others

similarly situated; CRAIG McKNIGHT, Individually & on behalf of all

others similarly situated; ROBERT H. BURROWS, JR., Individually &

on behalf of all others similarly sit uated; BARBARA A. WILLIAMS,

Individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated; LOYD

WELLESLEY, I ndividually & on behalf of all others similarly

situated; WILLARD P. CORRELL, SR., Individually & on behalf of all

others similarly situated; BRUCE PHILPOT, Individually & on behalf

of all others similarly situated; J. BRUCE GRAY, Individually & on

b ehalf of all others similarly situated; RICK WIL LIAMS,

Individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated; A. JOE

CUTRER, Individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated;

ROBERTO G. FERNANDEZ VINAS, Individually & on behalf of all others

similarly situated; THOMAS D. McCARTHY; WYLIE HOLMES; DAVE COOPER;

ED FORTNER; JACK D. NEAL; FLOYD E. FULCHER; JACK W. SPRABARY;

ROBERT L. STOCKTON; CARROLL E. BROWN; MICHAEL J. HAMMER; SCOTT E.

PETERSON; WILLIAM H. MANSFIELD, JR.; JAMES S. STANDIFER; BETTIE J.

GARRETT; CHERIE J. STOWE; ARVIL R. MARTIN, JR.; SANFORD W. MAYNARD;

DENISE P. MILLER; EVERETT G. GROSGEBAUER; GREGORY E. SMITH; MICHAEL

CHESSMORE; IMA DELL IRVIN, Individually & on behalf of all others

similar situated.

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,

versus

RANDALLS FOOD MARKETS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

_________________________________________________________________

May 22, 20012

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light

of the excellent briefs, oral arguments, and pertinent portions of

the record. Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or

law by the district court and affirm based on that court’s

conscientious, well-reasoned opinions, which will be be published.

AFFIRMED

.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 12, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 350 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-186, CP2017-287.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-19271 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### John E. FITZGIBBONS, petitioner, v. Sally J. ZEMAN, Trustee.

No. 10-200.

Oct. 18, 2010.

Case below, 365 FecLAppx. 126.

*1068Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 40 

Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and honor the members 

of the Armed Forces that served on active duty in support of Operation 

Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2016 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. DONNELLY, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. COTTON, Mr. 

KING, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. KIRK, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. INHOFE, 

Mr. HATCH, and Mr. BURR) introduced the following joint resolution; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and 

honor the members of the Armed Forces that served 

on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm 

or Operation Desert Shield. 

Whereas subsection (b)(1) of section 8908 of title 40, United 

States Code, provides that the location of a commemorative work in the area depicted as ‘‘Area I’’ on the map 

described in subsection (a) of that section shall be 

deemed to be authorized only if approved by law not later 

than 150 days after the date on which Congress is notified that the subject of the commemorative work is of 

preeminent historical and lasting significance to the 

United States; 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 40 IS 

Whereas section 3093 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 

113–291) authorized the National Desert Storm Memorial Association to establish a memorial in the District of 

Columbia to commemorate and honor the members of the 

Armed Forces that served on active duty in support of 

Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield; and 

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress 

of the determination of the Secretary of the Interior that 

the subject of the memorial is of preeminent historical 

and lasting significance to the United States and may be 

located in Area I: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the location of the commemorative work authorized 

4 by section 3093 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

5 McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

6 Year 2015 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 113–291) 

7 to commemorate and honor the members of the Armed 

8 Forces that served on active duty in support of Operation 

9 Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield, within Area I, 

10 as depicted on the map described in section 8908(a) of 

11 title 40, United States Code, is approved. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Raymond M. Weinstein et al., Appellants, v City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 3, 2007;

decided February 7, 2008

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 9*NY3d 811 (2007)].
#### I. Parker HUFF, petitioner, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CENTRE HALL, nka Northwest Savings Bank.

No. 96-1388.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 12, 1997.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superi- or Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, denied.