alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Submitted on record and briefs January 22,

conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing February 10, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DONALD WAYNE MYERS, *Appellant.*

(91-1050; CA A73712)

845 P2d 935

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Williams, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Warren and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*157PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for criminally negligent homicide. ORS 163.145. He challenges only the part of the sentence requiring him to pay restitution to Kathleen Kirk, the victim’s mother. The state concedes that the court so erred.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
#### § 779.4 Pay standards for newly covered employment.

There are many employees of retailers as well as other employees who would not be subject to the minimum wage or overtime pay provisions of the Act as it was prior to the 1966 amendments, either because of their individual activities or because of the activities of the enterprise in which they are employed, but who are brought under the minimum wage or overtime provisions, or both, for the first time by the changed enterprise coverage provisions or changes in exemptions, or both, which were enacted as part of the amendments and made effective February 1, 1967. The following pay standards apply to this newly covered employment, unless a specific exemption has been retained or provided in the amendments; such employees must be paid not less than the minimum wages for hours worked and not less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for overtime, as shown in the following schedule:

| Minimum wage | Beginning |
| --- | --- |
| $1.00 an hour | February 1, 1967. |
| $1.15 an hour | February 1, 1968. |
| $1.30 an hour | February 1, 1969. |
| $1.45 an hour | February 1, 1970. |
| $1.60 an hour | February 1, 1971 and thereafter. |

In each instance where there is an increase in the minimum wage, the new minimum wage rate becomes effective 12:01 a.m., on the date indicated. (Minimum wage rates for newly covered employees in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are set by wage order under special industry committee procedures. Information on these rates and their effective dates may be obtained at any office of the Wage and Hour Division.)

| Overtime pay | Beginning |
| --- | --- |
| After 44 hours in a workweek | Feb. 1, 1967. |
| After 42 hours in a workweek | Feb. 1, 1968. |
| After 40 hours in a workweek and thereafter | Feb. 1, 1969. |

In each instance where a new overtime pay standard is applicable, it shall be effective as to any workweek beginning on or after the date indicated.
Exhibit
32.1





STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Charles S. Conoley, President and Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.





/s/Charles
S. Conoley


President
and Chief Executive Officer


November
16, 2009
----

Action brought on 28 September 2004 by Habib Kachakil Amar against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-388/04)

(2004/C 284/56)

Language in which the application was submitted: Spanish

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 September 2004 by Habib Kachakil Amar, represented by Juan Carlos Heder, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----
~D S1~q1. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 4

~ PRO~ October 15, 2014
Sweetwater Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation P.O. Box 105 TeecNosPos, AZ 86514 ATTN: Sarah Lee Subject: Request to retain public documents atthe Sweetwater Chapter for public

inspection Dear Ms. Lee: The purpose ofthis letter is to requestthatthe Sweetwater Chapterofthe Navajo Nation Reservation retain the enclosed documents atthe Sweetwater Chapter House for at least sixty (60) days for public inspection. These documents are the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s preliminary decision forthe proposed Clean AirAct Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration amendment permit forthe McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation nearthe city of Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. These documents are currently available for public comment. Please contact me at (415) 947-4156 or kelly.shtheerah(~,epa.gov ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,

Shaheerah Kelly, Environmental Engineer Permits Office Air Division
Enclosures
Exhibit 31

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Capital Solutions 1, Inc. pursuant to Section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Christopher Astrom, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of Capital Solutions 1, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2006

/s/ CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
---------------------------
Christopher Astrom
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LEYVA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 71594 Agency No. A072

- 668

- 382

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 24, 2016 **
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ , and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Jose Leyva Cruz , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholdin g of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) , and voluntary

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAR 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 71594

departure

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 84 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that even if Leyva Cruz had established past persecution, a showing of changed conditions in Guatemala rebutted any presumption of a well

- founded future fear of persecution

. See Sowe v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2008) ( substantial evidence supported agency’s conclusion that changed country condition s rebutted presumption of a well

- founded fear). Thus, we deny the petition as to Leyva Cruz’s asylum claim. Because Leyva Cruz failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye , 453 F.3d at 1190 (petitioner’s burden of proof for withholding of removal is more demanding than asylum). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT reli ef because Leyva Cruz did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of , the Guatemalan government. See Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).3 13

- 71594

We reject Leyva Cruz’s contention that the BIA erred in re fusing his request
for a remand

. Finally, Leyva Cruz did not raise a constitutional or legal claim regarding the agency’s denial of voluntary departure, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to
review th at discretionary determination

. See 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1229c(f); see also Esquivel

- Garcia v. Holder , 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20444

Conference Calendar

 

EDWARD S. HODGES, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRADLEY SMITH; BILL R. TURNER; JIM W.

JAMES; JOHN M. DELANEY; MICHAEL R.

HOESCHOLER; BRAZOS COUNTY COMM’RS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-5020

- - - - - - - - - -

August 21, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward S. Hodges, III (#313950), appeals the dismissal of

his civil rights action as frivolous. “[C]ivil tort actions are

not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of

outstanding criminal judgments.” See Heck v. Humphrey, 114

S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Hodges’s claims call into question the

validity of his conviction and sentence and may not be considered

in a § 1983 action under the rule in Heck because Hodges has not
No. 96-20444

- 2 -

demonstrated that his conviction and sentence have been

invalidated. 

Even though this complaint is subject to dismissal under

Heck, “it remains appropriate for district courts to consider the

possible applicability of the doctrine of absolute immunity.” 

Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Defendants

Jim James, Bill Turner, Bradley Smith, and John Delaney are

entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages in § 1983

actions arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their

prosecutorial and judicial functions. Boyd, 31 F.3d at 284

(prosecutorial immunity); Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th

Cir. 1993) (judicial immunity). 

Finally, we note that Hodges’s claim against his appointed

trial counsel, Michael R. Hoescholer, does not involve state

action and is not cognizable under § 1983. See Polk County v.

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 321-22, 325 (1981).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing the complaint as frivolous. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d

114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). The appeal is without arguable merit

and thus frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th

Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 

5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

We caution Hodges that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Hodges is further cautioned to review all pending 
No. 96-20444

- 3 -

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous.

 APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 133 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 133

         Celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2007

 Mr. Obama (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. 
 Corker) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.

Whereas Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson was born in 1939 to Bishop W.A. and Mrs. 
        Mary Patterson, Sr., in Humboldt, Tennessee;
Whereas Bishop Patterson was reared in Memphis, Tennessee, and Detroit, 
        Michigan, and ordained as an elder in the Church of God in Christ in 
        1958 by Bishop J.S. Bailey;
Whereas Bishop Patterson grew in wisdom at the Detroit Bible Institute and 
        LeMoyne Owen College in Memphis, Tennessee;
Whereas, in 1962, Bishop Patterson became co-pastor with his father of Holy 
        Temple Church of God in Christ in Memphis, Tennessee;
Whereas, in 1975, Bishop Patterson founded Temple of Deliverance, the Cathedral 
        of the Bountiful Blessings;
Whereas Temple of Deliverance is now a shining star of both the Church of God in 
        Christ and all of the Nation's communities of faith;
Whereas Temple of Deliverance, under Bishop Patterson's wise leadership, 
        continues to touch the entire Nation through its Bountiful Blessings 
        Ministry;
Whereas Bishop Patterson reached millions across the globe with his direct and 
        spirit-filled messages, encouraging the world to ``be healed, be 
        delivered, and be set free'';
Whereas Bishop Patterson served as the international leader of the Church of God 
        in Christ since November 2000, ably leading this denomination of over 
        6,000,000 members;
Whereas Bishop Patterson passed away on Tuesday, March 20, 2007, in Memphis, 
        Tennessee, surrounded by his wife, Mrs. Louise Patterson, and his 
        family;
Whereas Bishop Patterson will be celebrated as an invigorating spiritual leader; 
        and
Whereas the family of Bishop Patterson, the Temple of Deliverance congregation, 
        the Church of God in Christ, and indeed the entire Nation are deeply 
        saddened by the loss of this great man: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) expresses the condolences of the Nation to the family 
        of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson, the Temple of Deliverance 
        Congregation, and the Church of God in Christ; and
            (2) recognizes the life and accomplishments of Bishop 
        Gilbert Earl Patterson, who guided a church, led a 
        denomination, and influenced a nation.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 516.3 Bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employees (including academic administrative personnel and teachers in elementary or secondary schools), and outside sales employees employed pursuant to section 13(a)(1) of the Act.

With respect to each employee in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity (including employees employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teachers in elementary or secondary schools), or in outside sales, as defined in part 541 of this chapter (pertaining to so-called “white collar” employee exemptions), employers shall maintain and preserve records containing all the information and data required by § 516.2(a) except paragraphs (a) (6) through (10) and, in addition, the basis on which wages are paid in sufficient detail to permit calculation for each pay period of the employee's total remuneration for employment including fringe benefits and prerequisites. (This may be shown as the dollar amount of earnings per month, per week, per month plus commissions, etc. with appropriate addenda such as “plus hospitalization and insurance plan A,” “benefit package B,” “2 weeks paid vacation,” etc.)
§ 4231.3 Requirements for mergers and transfers. ( a ) *General requirements.* A plan sponsor may not cause a multiemployer plan to merge with one or more multiemployer plans or transfer assets or liabilities to or from another multiemployer plan unless the merger or transfer satisfies all of the following requirements: ( 1 ) No participant's or beneficiary's accrued benefit is lower immediately after the effective date of the merger or transfer than the benefit immediately before that date (except as provided under § 4231.4(b)).
( 2 ) Actuarial valuations of the plans that existed before the merger or transfer have been performed in accordance with § 4231.5.
( 3 ) For each plan that exists after the transaction, an enrolled actuary— ( i ) Determines that the plan meets the applicable plan solvency requirement set forth in § 4231.6; or
( ii ) Otherwise demonstrates that benefits under the plan are not reasonably expected to be subject to suspension under section 4245 of ERISA.
( 4 ) The plan sponsor notifies PBGC of the merger or transfer in accordance with §§ 4231.8 and 4231.9.
( b ) *Compliance determination.* If a plan sponsor requests a determination that a merger or transfer that may otherwise be prohibited by section 406(a) or (b)(2) of ERISA satisfies the requirements of section 4231 of ERISA, the plan sponsor must submit the information described in § 4231.10 in addition to the information required by § 4231.9. PBGC may request additional information if necessary to determine whether a merger or transfer complies with the requirements of section 4231 and subpart A of this part. Plan sponsors are not required to request a compliance determination. Under section 4231(c) of ERISA, if PBGC determines that the merger or transfer complies with section 4231 of ERISA and subpart A of this part, the merger or transfer will not constitute a violation of the prohibited transaction provisions of section 406(a) and (b)(2) of ERISA.
( c ) *Certified change in bargaining representative.* Transfers of assets and liabilities pursuant to a change of collective bargaining representative certified under the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 or the Railway Labor Act, as amended, are governed by section 4235 of ERISA. Plan sponsors involved in such transfers are not required to comply with subpart A of this part. However, under section 4235(f)(1) of ERISA, the plan sponsors of the plans involved in the transfer may agree to a transfer that complies with sections 4231 and 4234 of ERISA. Plan sponsors that elect to comply with sections 4231 and 4234 of ERISA must comply with the rules in subpart A of this part.
( d ) *Informal consultation.* A plan sponsor may contact PBGC on an informal basis to discuss a potential merger or transfer.
[No. 26526-5-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Larry Wayne Broderick, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 00-1-02123-4, Bryan E. Chushcoff, J., entered September 22, 2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Armstrong, JJ.
Document Headings

                    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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [WY-920-1310-01; WYW147466]

                    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW147466 for lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, was timely filed and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date of termination. The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively.                

                    The lesee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW147466 effective February 1, 2000, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                

Theresa M. Stevens,

Acting Chief, Leasable Minerals Section.

[FR Doc. 00-13397  Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-M