alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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).

The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior United States District Judge ***

for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALBERTO JOSE RIVAS-MARIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71287

Agency No. A039-804-830

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District

Judge.*** 

Petitioner Alberto Rivas-Marin (“Rivas-Marin”), a native and citizen of

Nicaragua, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

FILED

FEB 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

(“BIA”). The BIA upheld the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) ruling that Rivas-Marin’s

mail fraud conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 constituted an aggravated felony

under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), thus requiring his removal to Nicaragua.

Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) prohibits judicial review of orders of

removability resting on an alien’s conviction for an aggravated felony, we still

retain jurisdiction “to determine if jurisdiction exists.” Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales,

416 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we

may determine, as a matter of law, whether Rivas-Marin’s mail fraud conviction is

an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), which defines “aggravated

felony” as a crime involving fraud or deceit causing more than $10,000 in loss to

victims.

The Supreme Court has held that an alien’s mail fraud conviction under §

1341 is an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). Nijhawan v. Holder, 129

S. Ct. 2294, 2303-04 (2009). Alternatively, Rivas-Marin’s many admissions of

fraudulent activity would establish the elements of “fraud or deceit” under a

modified categorical approach. See United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655

F.3d 915, 936 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). 

The IJ used “fundamentally fair procedures” in determining that victims’

losses exceeded $10,000. Nijhawan, 129 S. Ct. at 2302–03. Rivas-Marin was
3

ordered to pay $37 million in restitution. He also admitted that his scheme

involved fraudulently inflating the value of several real estate properties by more

than $100,000 each. At the same time, he offered no evidence demonstrating that

losses were less than $10,000. The IJ fairly considered these facts in finding that

Rivas-Marin’s scheme caused losses of over $10,000. 

Because we agree with the BIA and the IJ that Rivas-Marin is removable for

having committed an aggravated felony, we dismiss his petition for lack of

jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).

PETITION DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of 2002,  in  connection  with the  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ended May 31,  2006 (the  "Report")  by
Futura Pictures, Inc. ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

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




July 5, 2006                            By:  /S/ BUDDY YOUNG
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Buddy Young
                                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                             Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4865

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NKHENGE SHROPSHIRE, a/k/a Konjay Shropshire,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief

District Judge. (3:13-cr-00248-FDW-1)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony E. Rollman, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill 

Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Nkhenge Shropshire pled 

guilty to conspiracy to impede the Internal Revenue Service, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and making a false statement 

on a loan application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1014 (2012). 

With Shropshire’s consent, a magistrate judge conducted a Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 hearing and accepted her guilty pleas. Shropshire 

argues on appeal that the magistrate judge lacked the authority to 

accept her guilty pleas. Because there is binding Fourth Circuit 

precedent to the contrary, we affirm.

The sole issue Shropshire raises on appeal is that, in 

accepting her guilty pleas, the magistrate judge exceeded the 

authority vested in him under the Federal Magistrates Act. Central 

to Shropshire’s argument is the recent decision in United States 

v. Harden, 758 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2014), in which the Seventh 

Circuit held “that the magistrate judge’s acceptance of 

[defendant]’s guilty plea violated the Federal Magistrates Act.” 

Id. at 891. This court has held, however, that the Magistrates 

Act authorizes magistrate judges to accept a guilty plea and find 

a defendant guilty when, as here, “the parties have consented to 

the procedure” and the district court retains “ultimate control 

. . . over the plea process.” United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 

424, 433 (4th Cir. 2008); cf. Harden, 758 F.3d at 891 (noting that 
3

Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits “authorize magistrate judges 

to accept felony guilty pleas with the parties’ consent”). 

Regardless of the Seventh Circuit’s contrary decision in 

Harden, we are bound by Benton. See United States v. Collins, 415 

F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (“A decision of a panel of this court 

becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels 

unless it is overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this 

court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Accordingly, we reject Shropshire’s challenge to the 

magistrate judge’s authority to accept her guilty pleas, and we

affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.1




Vindex Energy Corporation


300 Corporate Centre Drive


Scott Depot, WV 25560 - 304-760-2621





June 8, 2010





Via Certified Mail


Return Receipt Requested, Postage Prepaid





Douglas Coal Company


Attn: Mr. Christopher J. Polino, President


P. O. Box 230


Elkins, West Virginia  26241








Subject:
Notification of extension of Coal Lease And Mining Agreement (“Agreement”) (Lessee’s reference:  MDL-710-Vindex-Douglas) effective September 21, 1995 and recorded by Memorandum of Lease in Garret County, Maryland at Liber 662 Page 733, which lease was originally between Douglas Coal Company, Lessor, and Patriot Mining Company, Inc., Lessee, and subsequently assigned to Vindex Energy Corporation by Assignment Of Lease dated June 17, 2005





Dear Mr. Polino:





Pursuant to Article 17 of the Lease, Vindex Energy Corporation, on behalf of itself and its Assignor, Patriot Mining Company, Inc., hereby exercises its option to extend the term of the Lease for the additional five (5) year renewal term of September 21, 2010 through September 20, 2015.





If you should have any questions, please feel free to call.





Sincerely,





/s/ Christina T. Brumley





Christina T. Brumley


Assistant Secretary





cc:  Charles G. Snavely (via e-mail)


Michael P. Moore (via e-mail)


Samuel R. Kitts (via e-mail)


James V. Lawson (via e-mail)
| Subsidiary                                                               | Jurisdiction |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
| Northern      Illinois Gas Company (doing business as Nicor Gas Company) | IL           |
| Birdsall,      Inc.                                                      | FL           |

----
Ex104StockOwnershipGuidelines




Exhibit 10.4
FARMER BROS. CO.
 
STOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES
FOR DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
 
Adopted by the Board of Directors on February 20, 2008
 
                The Board of Directors of Farmer Bros. Co. (the “Company”) has adopted these Stock Ownership Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to further align the interests of the Company’s executive officers and independent directors with the interests of the Company’s stockholders and to further promote the Company’s commitment to sound corporate governance.
 
I.              Executive Officer Stock Ownership Guidelines
 
                Executive officers of the Company, as identified by the Committee (“Officers”), are expected to own and hold a number of shares of the Company’s common stock (“Common Stock”) based on the following guidelines:
 
	
				
	Officer
	 
	Value of Shares Owned
	 

	Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$450,000
	 

	Other Executive Officers
	 
	$100,000 - $250,000, as determined by the Board in its discretion
	 




 
II.            Non-Employee Director Stock Ownership Guidelines
 
                Non-employee directors are expected to own and hold during their service as a Board member a number of shares of Common Stock with a value equal to at least three (3) times the amount of the non-employee director annual stock-based award, as the same may be adjusted from time to time, under the Company’s 2007 Omnibus Plan.
 
III.           Compliance with the Guidelines
 
                Stock that counts toward satisfaction of these Guidelines include: (a) shares of Common Stock owned outright by the Officer or non-employee director and his or her immediate family members who share the same household, whether held individually or jointly; (b) restricted stock or restricted stock units (whether or not the restrictions have lapsed); (c) ESOP shares; and (d) shares of Common Stock held in trust for the benefit of the Officer or non-employee director or his or her family.
 
                Until the applicable guideline is achieved, each Officer and non-employee director is required to retain all “profit shares,” which are those shares remaining after payment of taxes on earned equity awards under the Company’s 2007 Omnibus Plan, such as shares granted pursuant to the exercise of vested options and restricted stock that has vested.  Officers and non-employee directors are expected to continuously own sufficient shares to meet these Guidelines once attained.  Nothing contained herein shall otherwise prohibit any officer or non-employee director from transferring shares acquired by such person other than pursuant to the Company’s 2007 Omnibus Plan, including shares directly purchased in the market and ESOP shares, if any, subject to applicable securities laws and the Company’s other policies and procedures, including, without limitation, the Company’s Insider Trading Policy.
 
                These Guidelines may be waived at the discretion of the Board if compliance would create severe hardship or prevent an Officer or non-employee director from complying with a court order. It is expected that these instances will be rare.
##### 



(i)
    
    the Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Azim H. Premji

  Azim H. PremjiChief Executive Officer
  (i)
    
    the Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Suresh C. Senapaty

  Suresh C. SenapatyChief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1430.203 Eligibility. To be eligible to receive payments under this subpart, a dairy operation must: ( a ) Have produced milk in the United States and commercially marketed the milk produced anytime during the period of October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2012;
( b ) Enter into a MILC during the contract application period;
( c ) Agree to all terms and conditions in the MILC and those that are otherwise contained in this subpart and comply with instructions issued by CCC;
( d ) Provide proof of monthly milk production commercially marketed by all persons in the dairy operation during the contract period, to determine the total pounds of milk that will be converted to hundredweight (cwt.) used for payment;
( e ) Submit timely production evidence according to § 1430.209;
( f ) Be actively engaged in the business of producing and marketing agricultural products anytime during the period of October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2012;
( g ) Meet all adjusted gross income eligibility requirements of part 1400 of this chapter as regards any person or entity seeking to receive payment under this part. No person or entity may, generally, receive any payment for FY 2009 marketings and subsequent marketings if their nonfarm yearly income for the relevant base period for the relevant marketings as determined under the adjusted gross income rules (as in effect when the payment is sought) is over $500,000 as determined under this subpart. Further, for entities an otherwise due payment will be reduced commensurately to the extent that any person with an interest in the entity, as determined under the adjusted gross income rules had such income over that limit for the relevant period;
( h ) Have submitted a contract during the applicable contract period for FYs 2008 through 2012: ( 1 ) Except for 2009, and subject to the start month provision of § 1430.205, must have for any fiscal year or month for which payment is sought to be paid submitted the FY 2008 through 2012 contract before the end of that fiscal year or month or
( 2 ) For FY 2008 payments, if payments are generated under this part for that fiscal year, must have submitted a contract for the FY 2008 through 2012 program by October 1, 2009 and for FY 2009 the contract must have been submitted by the month for which payment is first sought except to the extent that § 1430.205 explicitly permits the operation to pick a start month in advance of the month in which the contract is submitted; and
( i ) Must not, if it did not participate in the preceding MILC program for fiscal years prior to FY 2008, be affiliated with any other dairy operation.
[67 FR 64476, Oct. 18, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 19622, Apr. 17, 2006; 73 FR 73766, Dec. 4, 2008]
Order entered June 2 5 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01126

- CV

BRIGETTA D’ OLIVIO, Appellant

V.

ERHARD HERMUS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 14449



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 24, 2019 motion for extension of time to file her

brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by

ap pellant on June 24, 2019 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
CONSENT OF INDEPENDANT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independant public accountants, we hereby consent to the  use
of our report, and to all references to our, included in or made
a part of this form N-1A registration statement for the Nicholas
Fund, Inc.



			      /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSON & CO.




Milwaukee, Wisconsin
July 11, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1549 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1549

To amend Public Law 111-148 to transfer fiscal year 2013 through fiscal 
year 2016 funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to carry out 
 the temporary high risk health insurance pool program for individuals 
 with preexisting conditions, and to extend access to such program to 
 such individuals who have had creditable coverage during the 6 months 
        prior to application for coverage through such program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2013

 Mr. Pitts (for himself, Mr. Burgess, and Mrs. Wagner) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend Public Law 111-148 to transfer fiscal year 2013 through fiscal 
year 2016 funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to carry out 
 the temporary high risk health insurance pool program for individuals 
 with preexisting conditions, and to extend access to such program to 
 such individuals who have had creditable coverage during the 6 months 
        prior to application for coverage through such program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Sick Americans Now Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITIZING FUNDING FOR SICK AMERICANS.

    Section 4002(c) of Public Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 300u-11(c)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this section, the Secretary shall transfer amounts that 
are in the Fund that are attributable to fiscal year 2013 that are not 
otherwise obligated as of the date of the enactment of this sentence 
and funds that would otherwise be made available to the Fund for fiscal 
year 2014, fiscal year 2015, and fiscal year 2016 to the account within 
the Department of Health and Human Services that provides for funding 
to carry out the temporary high risk health insurance pool program 
under section 1101 and such funds shall become available for obligation 
under such section on such date of enactment and remain so available 
through December 31, 2013.''.

SEC. 3. IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR SICK AMERICANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1101(d) of Public Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 
18001(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end ``and'';
            (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to individuals applying for coverage through the 
high risk insurance pool program on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6462

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROGER TRENTON DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-91-137, CA-97-292-R)

Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Trenton Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

The district court entered an order denying Davis’ 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion on March 17, 1998. On March 11,

1999, Davis moved for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and

to file a late notice of appeal. The district court denied both

motions. Davis timely appealed. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal based upon the reasoning of the district court. See United

States v. Davis, No. CA-97-292-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 1999).

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.

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

###### Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 1421

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart E of part 1421 appear at 74 FR 15656, Apr. 7, 2009.

#### § 1421.409 Monitoring AGI.

DMAs are required to monitor their producers' AGIs and may not permit repayments with a market loan gain on peanut MALs or process peanut LDPs for those producers with annual AGI over the allowable limit as specified in part 1400 of this chapter.

[86 FR 70706, Dec. 13, 2021]
----

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      August 4, 2008                                   |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|  /s/      Dongliang (Frank) Su                          |   |   |   |
| Dongliang      (Frank) SuActing      Chief Financial Officer |

----