alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12-08-00339-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

MIC HAEL KEN

NE DY , § APP EAL FRO

M T HE T HIR D APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX

AS, APP ELL EE § AN DE RSON C OU

NT Y, TEX

AS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Appellant Micha el Kenne dy filed a notice of appe al from a judgment of conviction for burglary, a

felony. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 30 .0 2(c) , (d) ( Ve rn on 20 03 ). In c lud e d in his notice of a

ppeal is a r equest for

an out of time appe al. Th e Te xa s Co urt of Cr imi na l App e a ls is the on ly c ou rt wi th j ur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r a re qu e st for an out of time appea l. See Ate r v . Ei ght h Cou rt o f A pp e als , 802 S.W .2 d 241 , 2 43 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1991). Moreover, on February 25, 1988, in our cause number 12-86-00248- CR, we issued an opinion affirming the judgment Appellant attempts to a ppeal. That judgment be cause final af ter the court of c riminal appea ls denied Appe llant’s petition for re view, and w e is sued our mandate on April 13, 1988. Texa s Code of Criminal Procedur e, article 11.07 provides that a challenge to a final felony c onviction, in a case i n wh i ch t h e death penalty is not imposed, must be made by an application for writ of habea s corpus, returna ble to the court of c riminal appea ls. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P R OC . A NN . a

rt . 1 1. 07 (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ); Bd. of Pa rd ons & Par ol es e

x r e l. K e e ne v . Ei

ght h Co u rt of App e als , 9 1 0 S. W

. 2 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 3 ( T e x . Crim

. A p p . 1 9 9 5 )

. Co u r ts o f ap p e a ls d o n o t have jurisdiction in such matters. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004) . Acc ordingly, this appeal a nd Appellant’s r equest for an out of time appe al ar e dismiss ed

.2

Opinion delivere d September 3, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBLISH)
Table of Contents

Exhibit 13.1

AES Gener S.A.Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Enacted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

AES Gener S.A. (the "Company") is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as enacted pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Felipe Cerón, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that:

To the best of my knowledge:

|(A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   

Date: December 4, 2006

_________________________
  Felipe Cerón 
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Elton Alderman, Chief Executive Officer of Prolong International Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)          The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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:   November 12, 2002 |                                                                    
|-------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                           |                                                                    
|                           |                                                                    
|                           | /s/  ELTON ALDERMAN                                                
|                           |                                                                    
|                           | Elton Alderman Chief Executive Office (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   STATE OF
COMPANY                                                          INCORPORATION
<S>                                                              <C>
      BMCA Insulation Products Inc.                                 Delaware
      BMCA Receivables Corporation                                  Delaware
      Building Materials Investment Corporation                     Delaware
      Building Materials Manufacturing Corporation                  Delaware
      GAF Leatherback Corp.                                         Delaware
      GAF Materials Corporation (Canada)                            Delaware
      GAF Premium Products Inc.                                     Delaware
           Wind Gap Real Property Acquisition Corp.                 Delaware
      GAFTECH Corporation                                           Delaware
      LL Building Products Inc.                                     Delaware
           Ductwork Manufacturing Corporation                       Delaware
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.0 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-138651) and Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.333-156727) of our reports dated February 24, 2009, relating to Intervest Bancshares Corporation and Subsidiaries’ consolidatedfinancial statements and its internal control over financial reporting, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ Hacker, Johnson & Smith, P.A., P.C. 

Hacker, Johnson & Smith, P.A., P.C. 

Tampa, Florida 

February 24, 2009
<PAGE>   1
            THRIFT MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

          EXHIBIT 11 -- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



The following table presents the computation of basic and diluted losses per
share:



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended
                                            -----------------------------
                                             March 26,          March 28,
                                               2000               1999
                                            -----------       -----------
<S>                                         <C>               <C>
Numerator:
  Net (loss)                                $  (260,014)      $   (63,141)
                                            -----------       -----------

Denominator:
  Denominator for basic loss per
   share--weighted-average shares             2,343,460         2,185,700

  Effect of dilutive securities:
    Stock options                                    --                --


  Denominator for diluted loss per share      2,343,460         2,185,700
                                            ===========       ===========

(Loss) per share:
Basic                                       $     (0.11)      $     (0.03)
                                            ===========       ===========
Diluted                                     $     (0.11)      $     (0.03)
                                            ===========       ===========


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 287 

For relief of Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For relief of Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano. 

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 RESIDENT STATUS FOR ENRIQUE 

4 SORIANO AND ARELI SORIANO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano shall each be eligi8 ble for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 

9 of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for perma10 nent residence upon filing an application for issuance of 

11 an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for 

12 adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

HR 287 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Enrique Soriano 

2 and Areli Soriano enters the United States before the fil3 ing deadline specified in subsection (c), he or she shall 

4 be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 

5 shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of 

6 status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nation7 ality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano, the Sec16 retary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce 

17 by 2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 

18 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

19 to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 

20 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli21 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

22 available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

23 under section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

HR 287 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Enrique Soriano and 

2 Areli Soriano shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 

3 accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immi4 gration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### Ronald Koch, Respondent, v National Basketball Association, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[666 NYS2d 630]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered June 30, 1997, which, in an action to recover damages for defendants’ alleged loss of plaintiff’s photographic slides, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of standing to sue, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motions with leave to renew, including the request for sanctions, upon conclusion of the Bankruptcy Court hearing referred to in the order of that court dated November 26, 1996, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The doctrine of judicial estoppel, which, in a bankruptcy context, bars a party from pursuing claims not listed in a bank*231ruptcy proceeding that resulted in the party’s discharge *(see, Cafferty v Thompson,*223 AD2d 99, 102, *lv denied*88 NY2d 815), does not apply in the absence of a final determination in the bankruptcy proceeding endorsing the party’s inconsistent position concerning his or her assets *(see, Manhattan Ave. Dev. Corp. v Meit,*224 AD2d 191, *lv denied*88 NY2d 803). Here, the reopening of the bankruptcy proceeding, which the Bankruptcy Court was empowered to do in its sole discretion (11 USC § 350 [b]; *see, Bartle v Markson,*357 F2d 517, 523), revived the original bankruptcy proceeding and all the procedural and substantive rights of the debtor therein, plaintiff herein *(In re Cassell,*41 Bankr 737, 740), and thereby nullified the final determination upon which a judicial estoppel could be predicated. Nevertheless, since the order reopening the bankruptcy proceeding was granted with the proviso that a hearing be held on notice to defendants, their remedy, as parties in interest, is to contest the reopening before the Bankruptcy Court, and should they prevail, to renew their summary judgment motions to dismiss the complaint as barred by judicial estoppel. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FITSGERALD JOHANES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr. Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-73687

Agency No. A095-629-938

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted, May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Fitsgerald Johanes, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUN 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 05-73687

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hoxha v.

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for

review. 

The record does not compel the conclusion that Johanes established changed

or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his late filed asylum application. See 8

C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, Johanes’ asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Johanes’ encounter

with a group of Muslims in 1998 in which they asked to see his identification card,

having the front window of his car broken and a church group meeting disturbance

did not amount to past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016

(9th Cir. 2003). 

Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Johanes 

has not demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution as a Christian

to establish a clear probability of persecution. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85,

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, on the

record, Johanes failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians

in Indonesia. See id. at 1060-61.
3 05-73687

Johanes does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the

agency’s denial of his CAT claim, therefore it is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v.

INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are

deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
## / (l 

### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANGELA DENISE NAILS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. CIVILIAN CLAIMS DISABILITY, Defendant.


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FEB i**~. ~Dl1**  Clerk. U.S. District & B k Courts 

### torthe District OfanC r,uptcy oumbla 

# .11**(J~6~J**

This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in formapauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by prose litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenpro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the court'sjurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand forjudgment for the reliefthe pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose ofthe minimum standard ofRule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants ofthe claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether thedoctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiffalleges that she "was injured while [she] was a Civilian employee," and that she "is seeking the damages that was [sic] never paid
... when [she] was injured." Compi. at 1. Although plaintiffclearly states her demand for $100,000 in "damages for Pain and Suffering, Medical cost[s] and Mental disfigurement," id. at 2, her complaint does not allege facts sufficient to provide fair notice to defendant ofthe claims against it. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and it will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

# ~K&-~ United States DistJct

# JUdge~ DATE: 

# F.J. '1/

## /;Lnc

## ¥

2
#### Peach Parking Corp., Respondent, v 346 West 40th Street, LLC, Defendant, and The Hertz Corporation, Respondent, and Kinney System, Inc., Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 424]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered October 12, 2007, which granted plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint, granted defendant Hertz Corporation’s motion to interpose a counterclaim and affirmative defense, and denied defendant Kinney System’s motion for costs and fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this commercial landlord-tenant declaratory judgment action, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend its pleadings to add three additional causes of action—against 346 West 40th Street and Kinney for reimbursement for costs of various repairs to the leased premises after it was vacated by Hertz, and against Hertz for reimbursement for the repairs to the extent they were nonstructural and for unpaid rent. Leave was also appropriately granted to Hertz to interpose a counterclaim and the affirmative defense of constructive eviction. There was no showing of prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay in asserting these new claims *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*59 NY2d 755 [1983]; *Fahey v County of Ontario,*44 NY2d 934 [1978]). Nor were the moving papers unreliable or insufficient to support the claims *(see Daniels v Empire-Orr, Inc.,*151 AD2d 370, 371 [1989]).

*261Costs and fees were properly denied. The imposition of costs in connection with such amendments is discretionary *(Continental Cas. Co. v R.S. Look, Inc.,*212 AD2d 1064 [1995]; *see*Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:13), and the court specifically found that the motions to amend were neither frivolous nor intended to harass Kinney (22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 34353(U).]
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries



|                               |  |                                       
|------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------
|                               | 
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY             |  | STATE OF INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
|                               | 
|Intervest National Bank        |  | National Banking Association          
|                               | 
|Intervest Mortgage Corporation |  | New York                              
|                               | 
|Intervest Statutory Trust II   |  | Connecticut Business Trust            
|                               | 
|Intervest Statutory Trust III  |  | Connecticut Business Trust            
|                               | 
|Intervest Statutory Trust IV   |  | Delaware Business Trust               
|                               | 
|Intervest Statutory Trust V    |  | Delaware Business Trust
Exhibit 23.1
  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  The Board of Directors Consolidated Water Co. Ltd.:
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333−10206) on Form S−8 of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. of our report dated March 16, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10−K of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd.
  /s/ Marcum LLP
  Fort Lauderdale, Florida
 March 16, 2011
Appeal Reinstated; Order filed February 13, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00982

- CV

____________ CHENIERE ENERGY, INC . AND CHENIERE LNG T ERMINALS, LLC , Appellant s
V.
PARALLAX ENTERPRISES LLC, PARALLAX ENERGY LLC, PARALLAX ENTERPRISES (NOLA) LLC, LIVE OAK LNG LLC, LIVE OAK LNG PIPELIN E LLC, MOSS LAKE LNG LLC AND

CALCASIEU LNG LLC , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 49685



### ORDER

On January 18, 2018 , this c ourt issued an order abating the appeal and ordering the parties to conduct mediation within 60 days of the court’s order

.On January 25, 2018 , appellant s filed a n objection to the abatement of the

appeal, but not to the court’s order on mediatio n.

The objection is sustained , and t he appeal is reinstated. The parties’ mediation report is due on or before March 19, 2018. The reporter’s record is due on or before February 23, 2018

. PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21664]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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): October 10, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 3, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 366 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-3, CP2018-3.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-21664 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of AMCON Distributing Company on Form S-8 of our report dated
November 22, 2000, except for paragraph 5 of Note 8, for which the date is
December 22, 2000, relating to the financial statements, which appears in this
Form 10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated November 22, 2000 relating to the financial statement schedules which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
December 28, 2000