alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Saida Virginia Flores CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72554.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Saida Virginia Flores Campos, Selma, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Edward C. Durant, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

*947Saida Virginia Flores Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen, where the BIA considered the new evidence of Flores’ son’s psychological problems and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law”).

In the motion to reopen, Flores also presented evidence that she had given birth to another child, but did not claim that the new child had any medical or other problems. The remaining evidence Flores presented with her motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as her application for cancellation of removal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that Flores failed to establish the requisite hardship. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bare this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (internal quotations and brackets omitted).

Flores’ contention that the BIA violated her due process rights by disregarding her evidence of hardship is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.2

Charles W. Clayton, Chief Financial Officer, does hereby certify that:

1.   I have reviewed the Quarterly report of Hampshire Group, Limited on Form
     10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2004 (the "Report");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the 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 the Report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in the 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 the 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which the Report is being prepared;

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

     c)   Disclosed in the 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 controls over financial reporting,
     to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board
     of directors:

     a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal controls 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   May 11, 2004
     -------------------
/s/ Charles W. Clayton
------------------------
Charles W. Clayton
Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

d0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

136683(48)

JON ICHESCO and CITY OF YPSILANTI, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 136683 COA: 272905 Washtenaw CC: 2001-000889-CH DAVID KIRCHER, Defendant-Appellant,

and

JOHN C. RANKIN and VIDA L. RANKIN Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s September 9, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
exv10w10







EXHIBIT 10.10




Amendment No. 1 to

USG Corporation

Non-Employee Director

Compensation Program

(As Amended and Restated February 13, 2008)




	1.	 	Section 1.b of the USG Corporation Non-Employee Director Compensation Program (As
Amended and Restated February 13, 2008) (the “Program”) is amended effective January 1,
2011 to read in its entirety as follows:






	 	b.	 	$80,000 in the form of shares of USG common stock on December 31 of each year
commencing December 31, 2011.






	2.	 	Section 6 of the Program is amended to read in its entirety as follows:






	 	6.	 	For purposes of 1.b., 4 and 5 above, shares of
USG common stock will be valued at their Fair Market Value, as
defined in the Deferral Program, on the date on which the shares are to be delivered, assuming no deferral election is
made with respect to those shares.




November 12, 2010
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, William Goebel, certify
that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of FS Investment Corporation III; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 27, 2018



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ WILLIAM GOEBEL                    
|William Goebel
Chief Financial Officer
|
Exhibit
13.2



CERTIFICATION



The certification
set forth below is being submitted in connection with Biotie Therapies Corp.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code.



David Cook,
Chief Financial Officer of Biotie Therapies Corp., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with
                                         the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in
                                         the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                                         of operations of Biotie Therapies Corp.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March
22, 2016



|By: | /s/ David Cook                
|--- | ------------------------------
|    | Name:	David Cook              
|    | Title:	Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42691-42692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4332-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Texas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated August 25, 2017, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 30, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the

[[Page 42692]]

State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event 
declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 
25, 2017.

    Colorado, Fayette, Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Montgomery, 
Newton, Orange, Sabine, San Jacinto, and Waller Counties for 
Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and 
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct 
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
    Dallas, Tarrant, and Travis Counties for emergency protective 
measures (Category B), including direct federal assistance, under 
the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-19196 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 32.2

    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the accompanying Form
10-QSB of CN Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of; and that the information contained in the Form
10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company


/s/ Michael T. Storm

Michael T. Storm
Chief Financial Officer
May 16, 2005
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II 

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-GCJ14

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of August 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

The State of Texas, Appellant

No. 06-13-00116-CR v.

Jorge Louis Verde, Appellee

Appeal from the 336th District Court of 

Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR-11-

23705). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, The State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 23, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### In the Matter of Ignacio Reynoso, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Acting Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

Submitted March 10, 2008;

decided March 20, 2008

Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the October 29, 2007 letter appealed from is not a judgment or an order from which an appeal to the Court of Appeals may be taken *(see*CPLR'5512 [a]; 5601).
(logo) LNR

       Partners, LLC

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1. A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2015 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “Reporting Period"), and of the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liability company

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 23, 2016

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue · Suite 700 · Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 · Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

 

**Schedule I**  

 

 

COMM 2013-CCRE10

COMM 2013-CCRE10 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

c/o Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

200 Liberty Street 

New York NY 10281 

Anna H. Glick

  

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation 

60 Wall Street

New York NY 10005 

Lainie Kaye 

 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC 

560 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor

Att: COMM 2013-CCRE10 - Surveillance Manager

New York NY 10022

David Rodgers 

 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP 

200 Liberty Street

New York NY 10281 

Patrick T. Quinn 

 

U.S. Bank, National Association 

190 S. LaSalle Street, 7th Floor 

Mail Station: MK-IL-SL7C 

Chicago IL 60603

Deanna Degnan 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

9062 Old Annapolis Road 

Columbia MD 21045 

Group Notices
#### Dionishiah Wanjiru MWAURA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1753.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 9, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 17, 2008.

Winston Wen-Hsiung Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*637Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dionishiah Wanjiru Mwaura, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings as a matter of discretion. Based on our review of the record, we find we lack jurisdiction to review Mwaura’s claim that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen her deportation proceedings. *See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales,*492 F.3d 153, 155 (2d Cir.2007); *Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004); *Harchenko v. INS,*379 F.3d 405, 410-11 (6th Cir.2004); *Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir.2004); *Belay-Gebru v. INS,*327 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir.2003); *Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft,*320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d Cir.2003); *Luis v. INS,*196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir.1999). To the extent Mwaura attempts to avoid the jurisdictional bar by claiming a constitutional violation or a question of law, we find the claim is without merit.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DISMISSED.*
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 40761 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Clifford Laverne Mecham, Jr.,

Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18

- CR

- 1339

- 1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa , Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Clifford Laverne Mecham, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed at resentencing for his conviction for possession of child pornography. This court previously vacated Mecham’s sentence based on the district court’s misapplication of the U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4)(A) enhancement. Mecham

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 15, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40761 Document: 00515823889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2021No. 20

- 40761

2 has moved for summary disposition, asserting that 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2256(8)(C) are unconstitutional as applied to him.
“On a second appeal following remand, the only issue for consideration is whether the [district court] reached its final decree in due pursuance of [this court’s] previous opinion and mandate.” Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners , 70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Mecham ’s argument challenging the constitutionality of §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2256(8)(C) as applied to hi m is beyond this court’s remand order, we decline
to consider it. See Burroughs , 70 F.3d at 33.
Accordingly, Mecham’s motion for summary disposition is

DENIED

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 20-40761 Document: 00515823889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert COUNCIL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7170.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

Herbert Council, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Council appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for the Court to Enter an Order for Immediate Relief.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Council,*No. 3:92-cr-00097-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 24, 2007). We deny Council’s motion for bail pending appeal and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*