alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Margarito FLORES-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70077.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 16, 2008.

Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). The regulations provide that a party may file only one motion to reopen and the motion must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s third motion to reopen filed more than ten years after the final administrative order because the motion was time- and numerically-barred and did not meet a regulatory exception to the filing requirements. Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted.

Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of deportation confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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.
#### Steven W. MATSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COURT OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; Honorable Nancy Chisholm; Honorable Napoleon B. Barefoot, Jr.; Rebecca Jones; Edward Geddings; Adrian Iapalucci; Jason Harris, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-2018.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 27, 2008.

Steven W. Matson, Appellant pro se.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven W. Matson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). *276This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 30, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on October 3, 2007. Because Matson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Mat-son leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, I, Linden Boyne, certify that:

To the best of my  knowledge  and belief,  the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  July  22,  2003  by
Westminster  Auto Retailers Inc., and to which this  certification  is appended,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained  in the  Quarterly  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Westminster Auto Retailers Inc.



                                        /s/ Linden J Boyne
                                        -------------------
                                        Linden  J Boyne
                                        Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Westminster Auto Retailers Inc., and will be retained by Westminster
Auto Retailers Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Roger Dale Gammons, Appellant

No. 06-15-00027-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1423873). 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, Roger Dale Gammons, has adequately indicated his inability 

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

RENDERED AUGUST 11, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF SPINNAKER EXPLORATION COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Spinnaker Exploration Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger L. Jarvis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to my knowledge, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       |  | /s/ ROGER L. JARVIS    
|Name:  |  | Roger L. Jarvis        
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:  |  | August 5, 2004         



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Spinnaker Exploration Company and will be retained by Spinnaker Exploration Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### SHELL v. COUNTY ELECTION BOARD OF SEQUOYAH COUNTY et al.

No. 34788.

Aug. 4, 1950.

*221 P. 2d 780.*

W. S. Agent, of Sallisaw, and Kelly Brown, of Muskogee, for plaintiff.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendants.

ARNOLD, V.C.J.

Petitioner, Huckleberry Shell, was a candidate for the office of sheriff of Sequoyah county in the run-off primary held July 25, 1950. According to the official returns and announced results of said election by the Sequoyah county election board, he received fewer votes than did his opponent.

Within the time prescribed by law he filed an application for a recount of the votes cast in said election for said office, therein stating that: “he is not satisfied with the results of the count-of each and all of the precincts in Sequoyah county, Oklahoma, together with the absentee ballot boxes and that he desires that each and all of the ballots used in said election held on the 25th day of July, 1950, be recounted by said Sequoyah county election board in and before the district judge of this judicial district,” and deposited $250 in cash to defray the expenses of said recount.

*356The members of the board convened with the district judge in the district courtroom and after consideration of the application, on motion to dismiss, the application was dismissed and the recount refused. Thereupon this petition for writ of mandamus requiring the defendants to grant a recount of the ballots cast at said election was filed in this court.

Said petition under the rules of law this day announced in William O. Coe v. State Election Board et al., 203 Okla. 356, 221 P. 2d 774, and for the reasons therein stated, was and is sufficient to entitle said petitioner to a recount as prayed for.

Writ granted.

DAVISON, C.J., and WELCH, CORN, LUTTRELL, HALLEY, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 12.1

THE WARNACO GROUP, INC.

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

2007


2006


2005


2004


Period
February 5,
2003 to
January 3,
2004(Dollars in Millions)Interest expense, net



$
34.0




$
35.6




$
18.7




$
20.4




$
21.9Capitalized interest




—





—





1.1





—Interest on operating leases




34.4





27.1





17.1





14.5





15.7Total fixed charges



$
68.4




$
62.7




$
36.9




$
34.9





37.6Pre-tax income from continuing operations



$
110.1




$
86.3




$
70.0




$
43.9




$
5.0Fixed charges




68.4





62.7





36.9





34.9





37.6Less: Capitalized interest




—





—





(1.1
)




—





—Total adjusted earnings



$
178.5




$
149.0




$
105.8




$
78.8




$
42.6Fixed charge coverage




2.61





2.38





2.87





2.26





1.13Deficit of earnings to fixed charges




n/a





n/a





n/a





n/a





n/a


---
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 31 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

INTRUST BANK, N.A. of Wichita

Kansas, Conservator of Ian Angus

Upchurch, a minor; GEORGE F.

UPCHURCH; and LORI UPCHURCH,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. No. 95-5176

ROBERT D. OLIVER, M.D.;

ROBERT D. OLIVER, M.D., an

Oklahoma Corporation; and

JANE PHILLIPS EPISCOPAL

HOSPITAL, INC., an OKLAHOMA

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 93-C-533-B)

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

 

Plaintiffs brought this diversity action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 alleging that

Defendants negligently managed the labor and delivery of Lori Upchurch on July 15,

1986, which resulted in permanent and irreversible brain damage to her son, Ian
2

Upchurch. Following a twelve day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of

Defendants. The district court subsequently denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Plaintiffs now appeal from the unfavorable jury verdict on their

medical malpractice claim arguing the district court denied them a fair trial. Plaintiffs

proffer eight reasons why we should overturn the jury’s verdict and award them a new

trial. According to Plaintiffs, the district court improperly (1) placed time restrictions on

the presentation of their case; (2) failed to address juror bias; (3) permitted defense

counsel to make prejudicial remarks in opening and closing arguments; (4) allowed

defense counsel to introduce inadmissible evidence during trial; (5) engaged in conduct

demonstrating bias; (6) failed to strike defense testimony in violation of its sequestration

order; (7) refused to amend the pretrial conference order to conform to the evidence; and

(8) refused to instruct the jury on the issue of informed consent. Our jurisdiction to

review Plaintiffs’ claims arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record before us, and carefully

considered each of Plaintiffs’ arguments. Because we find nothing in the record which

constitutes reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
#### Lissette MENA-ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74562.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*295MEMORANDUM **

Lissette Mena-Estrada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mena-Estrada’s motion to reopen as untimely because Mena-Estrada filed the motion more than nine months after the BIA’s final administrative decision, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mena-Estrada failed to establish changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *see also Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 991.

Mena-Estrada’s contention that she should have been permitted to file a successive asylum application is foreclosed by *Lin v. Holder,*588 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir.2009).

Mena-Estrada’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen fails because she has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. *See Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3175 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 135 Main Street in Biloxi, Mississippi, as 

the ‘‘Robert S. McKeithen Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3175 EH

1 SECTION 1. ROBERT S. MCKEITHEN POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 135 Main Street in Biloxi, Mis5 sissippi, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert S. 

6 McKeithen Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert S. McKeithen 

11 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 

2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3175 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice Building’’. Mississippi, as the ‘‘Robert S. McKeithen Post al Service located at 135 Main Street in Biloxi,
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Alvin Curry","title":"Strategic Plans - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"U4loDA3FAJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/about\/strategies-budgets-and-performance\/strategic-plans\/\">Strategic Plans<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/about\/strategies-budgets-and-performance\/strategic-plans\/embed\/#?secret=U4loDA3FAJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Strategic Plans” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"U4loDA3FAJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"2022 2018 2017 2014 2013 2011 2008 2003 2000 1999","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
Exhibit 99.3 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1650, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Terrance Owen, President and Chief Executive Officer of ALDA PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. (the Company), certify that to the best of my knowledge:  1. the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Terrance Owen  Terrance Owen Chief Executive Officer December 30, 2010
EXHIBIT 35.1****

**Statement ofCompliance of The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.**

I, James W. P. Hall, Vice Presidentof The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York  corporation (the “Trustee”), state: 

(a) A review of the Trustee’sactivities for the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and of the Trustee’s performance under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreementsdated November 5, 2004 between Merrill Lynch Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the“Depositor”) and the Trustee, as trustee and securities intermediary (the “SecuritiesIntermediary”), in each case amended by a series supplement between the Depositor, theTrustee and the Securities Intermediary (as amended in each such case, the “TrustAgreement”), has been made under my supervision. 

(b) To the best of my knowledge andbased on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the TrustAgreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period for PPLUS Trust SeriesGSC-4 Trust Certificates. 

|                | The Bank of New York Mellon        (formerly The Bank of New York), as Trustee      |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                                                |
| Date: March 4, 2013 | /s/ James W. P. Hall                                                                |
|                | James W. P. Hall                                                     Vice President |
Exhibit 31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, William Threadgill, certify that:




1.           I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of STRATSSM Trust For Goldman Sachs Group Securities, Series 2006-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;
 
 3.           Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4.           Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and
 
 5.           All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.




In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.






Dated: March 30, 2012
By:  /s/ William ThreadgillWilliam ThreadgillPresident(senior officer of depositor in charge of securitization)