alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 27, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-0259 Lower Tribunal No. 21-15066

________________ 

### D.M., The Mother , Appellant,
vs. 

### Department of Children and Families, et al. ,

Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosy Aponte, Judge. Thomas Butler, P.A., and Thomas J. Butler, for appellant. Karla Perkins, for appellee, Department of Children and Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Krystle Cacci, Certified Legal Intern (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See P.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 337 So. 3d 456, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (explaining that once the trial court determines that termination is warranted under section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, the court need not make a determination as to the least restrictive means); K.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 332 So. 3d 501, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (upholding the constitutionality of section 39.806(1)(f)); J.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 279 So. 3d 316, 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“While a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence, the district court of appeal’s review is limited to whether competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings.”).
#### Alfredo Garcia DELGADO; Maria Del Rocio Coronado Prado, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70656.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 02, 2008.

Jessica E. Smith, Jeremy M. Clason, Esq., Fresno, CA, for Petitioners.

*659Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Song E. Park Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alfredo Garcia Delgado and Maria del Rocío Coronado Prado, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners’ motion to reopen, because petitioners failed to demonstrate that the medical evidence they submitted was previously unavailable or was not considered by the immigration judge (“U”). *See*8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c); *see also Bhasin v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir .2005).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions regarding the allegedly contradictory statements made by the IJ because this petition for review is not timely as to the BIA’s underlying order summarily affirming the IJ’s decision. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Hooker, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 36]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered March 30, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court’s *Sandoval*ruling provided the defendant with sufficient information to make an informed decision as to whether to testify at trial *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371).

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by curtailing his cross-examination of the complainant Peter Alvarez. It is within the trial court’s wide latitude and broad discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination of witnesses concerning collateral matters designed to impeach credibility *(see, People v Daniels,*225 AD2d 632). The issue of whether the complainant may have entered into a cooperation agreement with the District Attorney’s office in connection with a previous conviction is unrelated to the complainant’s credibility since the complainant did not testify at the present trial pursuant to any alleged agreement *(cf., Giglio v United States,*405 US 150; *People v Novoa,*70 NY2d 490).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

*529The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Lerner, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22697]


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

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

1 CFR Part 603


Privacy Act Regulations; Correction

AGENCY: National Capital Planning Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) 
is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on 
September 20, 2017. The document issued New Privacy Act Regulations.

DATES: Effective October 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel and 
Chief FOIA Officer, 202-482-7223, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1808f8f84cf92828994988d8493a18f829182cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="593837373c772a3a312c20353c2b19373a293a773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2017-19996 appearing on page 
44044 in the Federal Register on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, the 
following corrections are made:


Sec.  603.3  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 44048, in the second column, the first of the two paragraphs 
designated (c)(1)(vii) is correctly redesignated as paragraph 
(c)(1)(vi).

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Anne R. Schuyler,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-22697 Filed 10-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7520-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jermar Jamie Fuller, Appellant

No. 06-18-00142-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 30th District Court of 

Wichita County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 59,981-

A). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Burgess 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 note that the appellant, Jermar Jamie Fuller, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 14, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00615-CV

DONNA T. MOORE, DAVID B. MOORE, AND PROVIDENT FUNDING 

ASSOCIATES, LP D/B/A PROVIDENT HOME LOANS, Appellants

V.

BRENHAM READY MIX, INC., Appellee

Appeal from the 155th District Court of Waller County. (Tr. Ct. No. 09-12-20105).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on May 2, 

2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised 

by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in trial court’s judgment. 

Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment awarding Brenham Ready Mix., 

Inc. foreclosure of the full amount of both of its liens and attorney’s fees, renders

judgment that Brenham Ready Mix, Inc.’s concrete lien is invalid, and remands the case to 

the trial court to determine the dollar amount of the fill-dirt lien that can be enforced 

against each of the appellants’ properties.

The Court orders that the appellants, Donna T. Moore, David B. Moore, and 

Provident Funding Associates, LP d/b/a Provident Home Loans, jointly and severally, pay 
one half of the appellate costs. The Court orders that the appellee, Brenham Ready Mix, 

Inc., pay one half of the appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered March 10, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes. Opinion 

delivered by Justice Keyes.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 US C SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (the
"Registrant") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Russell C. Ellwanger, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 US C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and section 13 (a).

     2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Registrant.

                                                     /s/ Russell C. Ellwanger
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     Russell C. Ellwanger
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

June 25, 2007

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER 
REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(B) OR RULE 15D - 14(B) AND 18 U.S.C.
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inova Technology
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report" ), I, Bob
Bates, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, that:

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

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

| | By:
      /s/ Bob Bates
| | -----------------------
| | Bob Bates              
| | CFO                    
| | October 26, 2011       

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUNCHUAN CHOU,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 71578 Agency No. A087

- 700

- 346

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 26, 2016 ** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ , Circuit Judges. Yunchuan Chou, a native and citizen of Chin a , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal

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

* 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). 

# FILED

MAY 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 71578

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings , and we review de novo legal questions. Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Chou’s argument that the IJ discredited facts in his asylum applica tion because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 67 7

- 7 8 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Chou claims past persecution and a well

- founded fear of future p ersecution based on his participation in a Christian house church. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chou failed to establish that h e suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution

. See Gu v. Gonzalez , 454 F.3d 1014, 1020

- 21 (9th Cir. 2006) ( record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s three

- day detention, interrogation, and beating with a rod rose to the level of persecution). We reject Chou’s contention that the agency did not consider the economic harm he suffere d. S ubstantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Chou failed to establish a well

- founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022 ; see also Molina

- Estrada v. INS , 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a3 14

- 71578

State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”)

. We reject Chou’s contention that the BIA failed to address his arguments on appeal

. See Lata v.
INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim )

. Thus , we deny Chou’s petition as to his asylum claim. Because Chou failed to e stablish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 11 90 (9th Cir. 2006)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part .
exv10w18



 




EXHIBIT 10.18




Third Party Contract/Rental Agreement

Minnesota School of Business (MSB) with

Broadview Media, Inc. (Broadview)




Minnesota School of Business will contract with Broadview for the use of Broadview’s
facilities, editing bays, sound studios and qualified technicians to support MSB’s classes in the
A.A.S. Digital Video Program. The classes are as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 
	DV100

	 	Basic Editing
	 	4 Credits
	DV110

	 	DV History/Camera Operations
	 	4 Credits
	DV170

	 	DV Editing FCP
	 	5 Credits
	DV180

	 	Sound For Video
	 	4 Credits
	DV200

	 	Video After Effects
	 	4 Credits
	DV210

	 	DV Editing Avid
	 	4 Credits
	DV220

	 	Video Lighting and Color
	 	4 Credits
	DV250

	 	Video Production
	 	5 Credits
	 

	 	Total
	 	34 Credits






The following information is included as part of the contract.



Systematic plan for student evaluations of third party facility and technicians




Student surveys will be offered following each course taken, requesting a general rating of
BROADVIEW’s facilities, sound studios, editing bays and qualified technicians. Responses to
surveys will be anonymous and voluntary. Any surveys that indicate a concern area will be reviewed
in writing with the MSB Directors of Education.



Description of all fees paid to the third party by the institution




MSB will charge for all courses using the MSB credit costs. All 3rd party
contract/rental agreement funds will be paid to BROADVIEW for use of its facilities, editing bays,
sound studios and qualified technicians at a rate of 10% of tuition per quarter per student.



Plan B (In the event Broadview defaults or is unable to provide services)

MSB would build studios at their location(s) to teach the courses..



Placement Services offered, including who is responsible for placing students

Students will participate in a MSB career development course, which covers job-seeking and
job-keeping skills and techniques such as identification of individual skills meeting employer
expectations, interview preparation and presentation and identification of potential employment
opportunities in business and industry.



MSB will be responsible for career placement of students.


 


1









 





A description of facilities




Broadview Media is located at 4455 West 77th Street, Edina MN 55435,
conveniently located next door to MSB’s Edina Campus.



BROADVIEW’s facilities provide students with industry standard equipment and technologies
applicable to the digital video production industry. The facilities are equipped to teach our
students any and all courses associated with video production in a real-time, apprenticeship
environment within a for-profit business.



A list of equipment located within the Broadview studio facilities is attached.



The parties to this Rental Agreement hereby agree.



	 	 	 
	Minnesota School of Business

	 	Broadview Media, Inc.






	 	 	 
	/s/Michael Blumberg

	 	/s/ Mark “Red” White
	 

	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title

	 	Director, DVD Program
	 	 	 	Title
	 	COO
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date

	 	April 2, 2004
	 	 	 	Date
	 	April 2, 2004
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 





 


2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William T. Martin, on Behalf of Radesh Autar, Petitioner, v Warden of the Brooklyn House of Detention, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 30]

—Habeas corpus proceeding in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Kings County Indictment No. 12062/97.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Kruger, 25*NY2d 497, 499; *see, People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.
EX-35 (g)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 12, 2007


Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc.,
Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-AR1

Per Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 1/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(A)   A review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
      portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
      such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, has
      been made under such officer's supervision.

(B)   To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
      has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
      applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, in all
      material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there
      has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
      specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and
      status thereof.

(C)   Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
      extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements, certifications
      or assertions herein are subject to the following): instances of
      noncompliance related to the subject transaction for the applicable
      reporting period are identified on Schedule A hereto.




Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary


(page)


Schedule A

Reporting Errors

During the reporting period, one or more of the monthly investor reports
contained certain types of errors in regard to the calculation and or the
reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets. To the best of the signing
officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been material,
has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has been
disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the reporting
period.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                         129,760
<SECURITIES>                                   172,456
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,521
<ALLOWANCES>                                       603
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               319,779
<PP&E>                                          13,208
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 426,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,325
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                     403,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   426,584
<SALES>                                         11,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,768
<CGS>                                              557
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,645
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (54)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,947)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,947)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)


</TABLE>
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 -  Journey Resources Corp. - Exhibit 4.1







SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT

AMONG

JOURNEY UNLIMITED OMNI BRAND CORPORATION

and

MURCIELAGO CAPITAL, S.A.

and

MINERALES JAZZ S.A. DE C.V. 









































































































































































































































SCHEDULE A

CLAIMS INFORMATION

The Vianey Mine concession consists of 44 hectares held under
  Exploration Concession (Number 164151, Exp. No. 5929, issued March 5, 1979)
  pursuant to the laws of Mexico. 







SCHEDULE B

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY









 

MINERALS JAZZ

  SA DE CV

 

GENERAL

  BALANCE

 

AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2004 

















MINERALS JAZZ

  SA DE CV

 

EARNINGS

  STATEMENT

 

AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2004 


















MINERALS JAZZ

  SA DE CV

 

ANNEX OF THE

  CATALOGUE 

 

AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2004 


















MINERALS JAZZ

  SA DE CV

 

ADDITIONAL CHANGES

  TO THE CATALOGUE

 

AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2004 






















































SCHEDULE C

TITLE OPINION























































SCHEDULE D

PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES AND LIABILITIES

None.