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

No. 08-72862.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 22, 2011.

Yu Chen Zhao, El Monte, CA, pro se.

James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yu Chen Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

*725In his opening brief, Zhao fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency’s determination that he abandoned his lawful permanent resident status. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

To the extent Zhao challenges the BIA’s December 16, 2008, order denying his motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Andia v. Ashcroft,*359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam).

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.
----

| (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2014of FindEx.com, Inc. (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 FindEx.com, Inc. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Steven Malone                                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Steven Malone                                          |
|   |   | President                                              |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) |

----
Exhibit 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|                                                                        |                        |      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | -----
|Name of Subsidiary                                                      | Jurisdiction of        | %    
|                                                                        | Organization           | Owned
|Media Challenge Holdings Limited                                        | British Virgin Islands | 100% 
|Shenzhen New Media Consulting Co., Ltd.                                 | China                  | 100% 
|Shenzhen Media Investment Co., Ltd.                                     | China                  | 100% 
|Shenzhen New Media Advertising Company Ltd.                             | China                  | 100% 
|Shenzhen Caina Brand Consultant Company                                 | China                  | 100% 
|Beijing Media Management ConsultationCompany                            | China                  | 100% 
|Shenzhen Keungxi Technology Company Ltd.                                | China                  | 48%  
|Beijing Orient Converge Human Resources
    Management Center Co., Ltd. | China                  | 52%  



---
#### Sherry Garcia, Appellant, v Kenneth J. Shaw, Jr., Respondent.

[988 NYS2d 674]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), dated May 29, 2013, which denied her motion, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court entered February 18, 2010, granting the defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and a judgment entered thereon, and thereupon to deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated May 29, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her failure to oppose a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Santos v Penske Truck Leasing Co.,*105 AD3d 1029 [2013]; *Political Mktg., Int’l, Inc. v Jaliman,*67 AD3d 661, 661-662 [2009]). *“A*motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the court” *(Vujanic v Petrovic,*103 AD3d 791, 792 [2013]). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to accept the plaintiffs explanation for failing to oppose the defendant’s motion *(see Byers v Winthrop Univ. Hosp.,*100 AD3d 817, 819 [2012]; *White v Daimler Chrysler Corp.,*44 AD3d 651, 651-652 [2007]; *cf. Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.,*48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]). Accordingly, we need not address the issue of whether the plaintiff demonstrated a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion *(see Silva v Honeydew Cab Corp.,*116 AD3d 691 [2014]).

Skelos, J.P, Leventhal, Cohen, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 D0 15 3

. UG W O N A L I L A W G R O U P
, L L C v. C H E R O K E E F U N D I N G
, LLC.

Ch ero k ee F unding, L L C f ile d a g arn is hm en t act io n seek i n g t o reco v er an award

o f OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 at t o rn ey fees en t ered ag ai ns t d efen d an t Ug wo n al i Law Gro u p,

LLC ( “ U g w o nal i ”). Bas ed on t h e l i m i t ed ap p l icat i o n m at eri al s , i t ap p ears t h at

d i s p u t ed fu n d s cu rren t ly are hel d i n t h e reg i s t ry o f t h e s t at e co u rt

. Ug w o n al i fi l ed a

m o ti o n t o t rav ers e an d m ot i o n t o d i s m i s s , as w el l as an em erg en cy m o t i o n to d i s m i s s ,

o r, i n th e al t ern at i v e, t o s t ay t he p ro ceed in g s

. T h e st at e co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n s , an d

Ug wo n al i fi l ed t h i s ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i on ary rev i ew. W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

Becau s e t h e o rd er t h at Ug wo n al i seek s to ap peal d i d n o t d i r e c t t h e

d i s b u rs em en t o f t he fu n d s h el d b y t h e st at e co u rt

, i t i s n o t fi n al

. See Tu rn er v. W o o d

,

1 5 9 Ga. Ap p

. 8 5 0

, 8 5 0 (2 8 5 SE2 d 58 9 ) (1 9 8 1 ); Kn o x v. Kn o x , 15 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4 4

, 1 4 4

(2 5 9 SE2 d 1 5 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ). A l t ho ug h ap p eal s in g arn i s h m en t cas es gen eral l y m u s t b e

i n i t i at ed by fi li n g an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i scret i o n ary rev i ew, s ee OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (4 ),

(b ), wh ere, as h ere, b o t h di s cret i o n ary an d i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal p ro ced ures ap p l y , an

ap p li can t m

u s t fo ll o w th e i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal p ro ced ures an d ob t a i n a t i m el y

cert ifi cat e o f i m

m ed i at e rev i ew fro m t h e t ri al co u rt b efo re fi l i ng an ap p l icat i o n

. See

S cr u gg s v. G a

. Dep t

. o

f Hu ma n Res o ur ces , 2 6 1 Ga. 5 87

, 5 8 8-5 8 9 (1 ) (4 0 8 SE2 d 1 0 3 )

( 1 9 9 1 ) ; s ee al so OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ). Ug wo n al i ’ s fai lu re t o d o s o d ep ri ves u s o f January 13, 2021ju ri s d i ct i o n o ver t h is ap p l i cat i o n fo r di s cret i o n ary rev i ew, wh i ch is h ereb y

DISM ISSED. See Tu r n er , 1 5 9 Ga. Ap p . at 8 5 0 ; Kn o x , 1 5 1 Ga. Ap p . at 1 4 4

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 01/13/2021
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Govani HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, also known as Carlos Geovani Hernandez, also known as Carlos Geovani Hernandez-Diaz, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40732

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Govani Hernandez-Diaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *An-ders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. *3681396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Diaz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.
CERTIFICATION OF C.E.O. AND C.F.O. PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB of Edgetech Services Inc. for the quarter ending January 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, in the capacity and date indicated below, hereby certifies that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Edgetech Services Inc.;



2.

based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3.

based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 this quarterly report;



4.

the registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



(c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





March 21, 2003

/s/Tae Ho Kim



Date

Tae Ho Kim,

C.E.O., C.F.O. and Director
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000147 27-SEP-2013 08:50 AM
EX-35 (b)
(logo) AVELO
 MORTGAGE


Avelo Mortgage,


Annual Compliance Statement


Re: GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2F (the "Trust") Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-2F, issued pursuant to the Master Servicing and
Trust Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2006, among GS Mortgage Securities
Corp., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as securities administrator
and master servicer, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as a custodian, Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, as a custodian, and U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee, GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2F.


1. A review has been completed of Avelo Mortgage, LLC's ("Avelo") servicing
activities and its performance under the servicing agreement during the period
from February 24, 2006 through December 31, 2006. This review was completed
under my supervision.


2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Avelo has fulfilled all
of its obligations under the agreement in all material respects, except as
described in the item below:


For a period of time in 2006, bank accounts were not reconciled in strict
compliance with Section 1122(d)(2)(vii) of Reg AB which provides as follows:


     *  Reconciliations are prepared on a monthly basis for all asset-backed
        securities, related bank accounts, including custodial accounts and
        related bank clearing accounts. These reconciliations are
        (A) mathematically accurate; (B) prepared within 30 calendar days after
        the bank statement cutoff date, or such other number of days specified
        in the transaction agreements; (C) reviewed and approved by someone
        other than the person who prepared the reconciliation; and (D) contain
        explanations for reconciling items. These reconciling items are resolved
        within 90 calendar days of their original identification, or such other
        number of days specified in the transaction agreements.


The bank account reconciliations were current as of December 31, 2006, and no
issues were found or arose from the delay in reconciling the bank accounts.

I certify this information to be true and correct to the best of my ability.



/s/ James Weston Moffett
Name:James Weston Moffett
Title: President and CEO
Date: February 28, 2007



600 E. Las Colinas Blvd. Suite 620 Irving, TX 75039 972.910.7000 F. 972.910.7099
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBig Cat Energy Corporation(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period end ofOctober 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,Richard G. Stifel,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14thday of March, 2008.

RICHARD G. STIFELRichard G. StifelChief Financial Officer






































---
#### In the Matter of Alberto Rivera, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 850]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting creating a disturbance, harassment, refusing to obey a direct order and failing to produce an identification card. He challenges this determination on the *911ground that it is not based upon substantial evidence. We disagree. Presented in evidence at the disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report authored by the correctional facility’s head cook. He related that petitioner was standing in the facility’s food service line when he became agitated after being denied fruit juice. Petitioner shouted abusive and obscene comments and refused a correction officer’s directive to produce his identification card. We find that the misbehavior report, written by an eyewitness to the events in question, was sufficiently detailed and probative to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see, Matter of Foster of Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964, 966). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit or unpréserved for our review.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,202
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,002)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,331)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: September 3, 2015 520029

________________________________ In the Matter of MAHUD KHABIR AL-MATIN, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 20, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ.

__________ Mahud Khabir Al-Matin, Wallkill, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents.

__________ Lahtinen, J.P. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Following an investigation into allegations in a memorandum from the correctional facility Imam regarding petitioner's conduct, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats, attempted extortion, conduct involving threats of violence, engaging in conduct detrimental to the order of the-2- 520029

facility, making an unauthorized address and interfering with an employee. At the conclusion of the tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. On administrative appeal, the determination was modified and the charges of attempted extortion, interfering with an employee and making an unauthorized address were dismissed. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. Initially, we reject petitioner's claim that the hearing was untimely. The record reflects that numerous extensions were properly sought and granted to commence and complete the hearing. However, assuming petitioner's claims that extensions were requested after a previous extension expired are true, we have repeatedly held that regulatory time limits are directory, not mandatory (see Matter of De La Cruz v Bezio, 107 AD3d 1275, 1276 [2013]; Matter of Senior v Fischer, 98 AD3d 783, 784 [2012]). The sufficiently detailed misbehavior report, the hearing testimony and the confidential testimony and information provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Hayward v Fischer, 101 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2012]). The Hearing Officer's interview with the investigating sergeant and his review of the confidential information allowed him to independently assess its credibility and reliability (see Matter of Walker v Fischer, 113 AD3d 977, 977-978 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 905 [2014]). Petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.-3- 520029

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court