alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered March 2, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01329-CV

ZIA UL-HAQ SHEIKH, Appellant

V.

JANE DOE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-08987

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 18, 2020 motion opposing sealing 

of records. The motion appears to be in response to appellee’s February 12, 2020 

motion to seal portions of appellant’s brief. That motion was denied as moot on 

February 18, 2020, prior to the filing of appellant’s motion but after we struck 

appellant’s brief for exceeding the word limit under the appellate rules. Because 

appellee’s motion was moot, appellant’s motion is also moot and DENIED. 
We note our February 18th order also struck the clerk’s record, which 

consisted of one sealed volume and one unsealed volume. Although the sealed 

volume included a copy of the trial court’s orders permanently sealing certain court 

records in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, many of the 

documents in the sealed volume were not subject to the sealing orders and certain 

documents in the unsealed volume should have been in the sealed volume. 

On February 26, 2020, Ms. Pitre filed a corrected record, consisting again of 

one sealed volume and one unsealed volume. The sealed volume consists of 

twenty-eight documents, excluding the cover, index, caption, cost bill, and clerk’s 

certificate. Of those twenty-eight documents, three are the trial court’s sealing 

orders and two are documents ordered to be permanently sealed–(1) defendant’s 

findings of law and response to plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law and (2) the final judgment. The remaining documents are not 

subject to the sealing orders. Of the documents in the unsealed volume, three are 

to be sealed–(1) defendant’s motion to determine admissibility of plaintiff’s prior 

sexual history, (2) defendant’s motion to request denial of plaintiff’s protective 

order, and (3) defendant’s response to plaintiff’s reply in support of her motion for 

protection.
Because the clerk’s record does not comply with the sealing orders, we 

STRIKE the record and ORDER Ms. Pitre to file a second corrected record no 

later than March 12, 2020.

Appellant’s brief shall be filed within thirty days of the filing of the 

corrected record.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre 

and the parties.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
#### Mohamed KAMARA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75508.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Victoria J. Dobrin, Esq., Dobrin *&*Han, LLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Sam E. Taylor, Jr., Esq., Dallas, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mohamed Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence, *Knezevic v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir.2004). We grant the petition and remand in part, and deny the petition in part.

The BIA found that even assuming that Kamara established past persecution, the *644record showed that Kamara could relocate within Sierra Leone. Substantial evidence does not support this finding because the BIA failed to consider the reasonableness of the relocation, including: whether Kamara would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties. *See id.*at 1214-15; *see also*8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); *Melkonian v. Ashcroft,*320 F.3d 1061, 1069-70 (9th Cir.2003). Because of our resolution of this claim, we need not address Kamara’s related due process claim.

The record does not compel a finding that Kamara is eligible for a humanitarian grant of asylum based on either the severity of the past harm, or the possibility of suffering other serious harm upon removal to Sierra Leone. *See Belayneh v. INS,*213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir.2000); *see also*8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).

Because Kamara failed to address CAT in his opening brief, this claim is waived. *See Martinez-Sermno v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

We remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED in part, DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Henderson L. HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles REAVIS; Mac Manning, Sheriff; Jerry Leggett; William Johnson; Alex Holman, Deputy; Mark McClish, Deputy; Jeff Frazier, Sheriff; Charlie Hasty, Jr., Lieutenant; Bobby Martin, Jr., Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees, and George Edward Bell Holding; John Howarth Bennett; Donnie Harrison, Sheriff; Allen Moore, Administrator; Captain Williams; Lieutenant Alford; Sergeant Champion; Sergeant Lucas, Defendants.

No. 10-6967.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 31, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2011.

Henderson L. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina; William L. Hill, James Demarest Secor, III, Frazier, Franklin, Hill & Fury, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*648PER CURIAM:

Henderson L. Hinton appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) action against Defendants and has moved for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hinton’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment. *See Hinton v. Reavis,*No. 5:07-ct-03057-D (E.D.N.C. May 25, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### John MILES, Sr., Appellant, v. Sue DOSAL, Mark Thompson, Lynn Lahd, Appellees.

No. 05-4016.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 5, 2007.

Filed: March 12, 2007.

John Miles, Sr., argued, Minneapolis, MN, pro se.

John Steven Garry, Attorney General’s Office, argued, St. Paul, MN, for Appellees.

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John Miles appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Miles alleged that a jury questionnaire used by Hennepin County contained an “impermissible race factor,” thereby causing African-Americans to be disproportionately underrepresented on and systematically excluded from grand and petit juries, in violation of his and other African-Americans’ equal protection rights. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that, while equal opportunity to serve on juries remains an important right, the evidence in this case did not establish a prima facie case for a jury-selection equal protection claim. Specifically, as explained in detail in the magistrate judge’s comprehensive report, which the district court adopted, the undisputed evidence did not show that African-Americans were substantially underrepresented in jury pools over a significant period of *500time, or that the random juror selection process in Hennepin County is susceptible of abuse or not racially neutral. Indeed, the record evidence supports the contrary conclusion. *See Floyd v. Garrison,*996 F.2d 947, 949 (8th Cir.1993) (elements of prima facie case). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miles’s discovery request. *See Robinson v. Potter,*453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir.2006) (reversal of denial of motion to compel discovery is warranted only if ruling amounted to gross abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIE BURTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-546 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 3, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Susan B. Maulucci, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, Public Defender, and Steven G. Mason, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., KELLY, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Agriculture Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
 Pursuant to the authority provided under section 302 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202), it was ascertained that the livestock market named below was a stockyard as defined by Section 302(a). Notice was given to the stockyard owner and to the public as required by Section 302(b), by posting notice at the stockyard on the date specified below, that the stockyard was subject to the provisions of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 
                    *et seq.*). Facility No., name, and location of stockyard
Date of postingGA-224 Dixie Livestock Market, Inc., Oak Park, Georgia
June 26, 2000.
 Done at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of February 2001. David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.


[FR Doc. 01-5645 Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-EN-U
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50921

Summary Calendar

GERARDO CERVANTES SOSA,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN OF REEVES CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION III,

Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CV-20

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerardo Cervantes Sosa (Sosa), former federal prisoner # 33257-177,

appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking removal of an

immigration detainer and transfer to a facility where he could avail himself of

early release programs. As Sosa has been released from Bureau of Prisons

custody and removed to Mexico, we dismiss his appeal as moot. See Calderon v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 2, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 10-50921 Document: 00512098547 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2013
No. 10-50921

Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996); Rocky v. King, 900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir.

1990). The appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief

therefore is denied as unnecessary.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.

2

 Case: 10-50921 Document: 00512098547 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       7,357,878
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,545,621
<PP&E>                                         385,125
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,832,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          402,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         7,524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,422,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,832,852
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,870
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                360854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             299,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (641,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (641,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (641,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
#### WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and Whirlpool Patents Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and General Electric Company, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2007-1088.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 1, 2007.

Daniel A. Boehnen, Christopher M. Ca-van, Sean M. Sullivan, McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Richard L. Stroup, Gerson S. Panitch, Parmanand K. Sharma, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Washington, DC, Larry S. Nixon, James T. Hosmer, Jeffry H. Nelson, Nixon & Vanderhye P.C., Arlington, VA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

*979ON MOTION

RADER, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (LG) move to dismiss the appeal filed by Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Patents Company (Whirlpool). LG states that General Electric Company joins the motion. Whirlpool opposes. LG replies. The parties also submit letters in support of their positions.

Whirlpool sued LG and General Electric for infringement of two patents. LG and General Electric filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement of both patents, declaratory judgments of invalidity of both patents on various grounds, and a declaratory judgment of unenforceability of one of the patents. The parties filed various motions for summary judgment, but LG and General Electric did not file motions for summary judgment concerning all issues underlying the declaratory judgment counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement of the first patent and invalidity of the second patent. The district court denied the other summary judgment motions as moot and entered a “judgment.” Whirlpool filed an appeal.

Whirlpool argues that it can appeal, despite the lack of entry of a judgment dismissing or denying the defendants’ counterclaims, because the district court’s intent to deny those counterclaims is clear from the circumstances. We disagree. As LG notes, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment did not raise all of the issues that are raised by the counterclaims. Thus, by denying summary judgment only on the issues raised by motions for summary judgment, the district court did not clearly decide all of the relief sought by the counterclaimants.

Because not all claims for relief were disposed of, and no judgment was entered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), there is no final judgment and the appeal must be dismissed as premature. *Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc.,*339 F.3d 1347 (Fed.Cir.2003); *International Elec. Tech. Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co.,*476 F.3d 1329 (Fed.Cir.2007).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

LAURA BURNSIDE BARBER

v. Record No. 1010-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM OSCAR MARION BARBER NOVEMBER 28, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY John M. Folkes, Judge (Theresa Rhinehart, on brief), for appellant. (Jeffrey M. Steingold, on brief), for appellee.

Laura Burnside Barber appeals the decision of the circuit court denying her motion for rehearing. The commissioner found, and the circuit court confirmed, that Laura had fraudulently induced Oscar Marion Barber to convey to her his interest in jointly-owned property. On appeal, Laura contends the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a letter supporting her position. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.

Rule 5A:27. "Whether to reopen a case lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge." Minor v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 803, 805, 433 S.E.2d 39, 40 (1993). Laura admits the letter does not

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 qualify as after-discovered evidence. Therefore, the matter was solely in the trial court's discretion, and we cannot say that the trial court abused that discretion by refusing to reopen the hearing to allow into evidence a letter which Laura had in her possession during each of the several hearings. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily

affirmed.

Affirmed.
64346 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2022 / Notices 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Designated Reserve Ratio for 2023 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of Designated Reserve 

Ratio for 2023. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), the 

Board of Directors (Board) of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) 

designates that the Designated Reserve 

Ratio (DRR) for the Deposit Insurance 

Fund shall remain at 2 percent for 2023. 

The Board is publishing this notice as 

required by the FDI Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashley Mihalik, Chief, Banking and 

Regulatory Policy Section, Division of 

Insurance and Research, 202–898–3793, 

amihalik@fdic.gov; Daniel Hoople, 

Chief, Fund Analysis and Pricing 

Section, Division of Insurance and 

Research, 202–898–3835, dhoople@

fdic.gov; or Kathryn Marks, Counsel, 

Legal Division, 202–898–3896, kmarks@

fdic.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the FDI Act, the Board designates that 

the DRR for the Deposit Insurance Fund 

shall remain at 2 percent for 2023. The 

Board is publishing this notice as 

required by section 7(b)(3)(A)(i) of the 

FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(b)(3)(A)(i)). 

There is no need to amend 12 CFR 

327.4(g), the section of the FDIC’s 

regulations which sets forth the DRR, 

because the DRR for 2023 is the same as 

the current DRR. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

By order of the Board of Directors. 

Dated at Washington, DC, on October 18, 

2022. 

James P. Sheesley, 

Assistant Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–22987 Filed 10–20–22; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      17,520,433
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     217,831,639
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,503,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 29,051,455
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      63,648,380
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        63,185,060
<LOANS>                                    173,779,309
<ALLOWANCE>                                (2,678,343)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             311,520,202
<DEPOSITS>                                 276,641,566
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,880,927
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,475,388
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,522,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             311,520,202
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,609,041
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,297,620
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               134,539
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,041,200
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,012,248
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,012,248
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,998,952
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   30,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,367,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,467,763
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,467,763
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   914,963
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.88
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,137,911
<LOANS-PAST>                                    11,297
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               216,745
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,351,221
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 (88,630)
<RECOVERIES>                                    34,897
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,678,343
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,678,343
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>