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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

WILFREDO TORRES-VALENZUELA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50328

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01025-JLS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012 ** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Wilfredo Torres-Valenzuela appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea to being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Torres-Valenzuela contends that his 30-month sentence was

FILED

FEB 22 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence at the low end of

the Guidelines range was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51,

128 S. Ct. 586, 169 L .Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Torres-Valenzuela’s contention that Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 129

S. Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), overruled Almendarez–Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 140 L. Ed.2d 350 (1998), is foreclosed by

United States v. Valdovinos–Mendez, 641 F.3d 1031, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.T05-0136 Safety Zone, Installation Area for Offshore Wind Power Transmission Export Cables, Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, Virginia. ( a ) *Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters within 550 yards of the center point of the installation site at position 36°48′57.6′′ N 75°57′43.2′′ W to include the shoreline within the radius. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.
( b ) *Definitions.* As used in this section, *designated representative* means a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Sector Virginia (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zones. The term also includes the masters of the Lift Boats RAM XII and/or RAM XV, for the sole purpose of designating and establishing safe transit corridors, to permit passage into or through these safety zones, or to notify vessels and individuals that they have entered a safety zone and are required to depart immediately.
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, no vessels or persons may enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
( 2 ) To seek permission to enter, vessels should contact the Lift Boats RAM XII and/or RAM XV via VHF-FM Channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative for the purposes of instructions for safe transit.
( d ) *Enforcement period.* This zone will be in effect and subject to enforcement during such times as the Lift Boats RAM XII and/or RAM XV is present within the zone, between March 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024.
[Doc. No. USCG-2024ndash;0136, 89 FR 13275, Feb. 22, 2024] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: By USCG-2024-0136, 89 FR 13275, Feb. 22, 2024, § 165.T05-136 was added, effective Mar. 1, 2024, until Dec. 31, 2024.
#### Bell v. Bugg.

Thursday, March 31st, 1814.

1. Slander — Declaration—Sufficiency.*—A declaration in slander, laying the charge in the alternative, viz. that the defendant spoke certain words, “or words of the same import,” is good after verdict.

2. Supersedeas — Extended Judgment on Forthcoming Bond. — The effect of a writ of supersedeas may be extended to a subsequent judgment on a forfeited forthcoming bond, without issuing another writ. See Monroe v. Webb’s exefcutors, ante.

In this case, (after a verdict for the plaintiff in slander,) the defendant moved, in arrest of judgment, that no actionable charge was made in the declaration, “both counts being laid in the alternative ; that.is to say, that the defendant spoke certain words, or words of the same import.” The Superior Court of law over-ruled the motion, and entered judgment for the plaintiff; whereupon the defendant obtained a,writ of supersedeas from a judge of this court; and, on the petition of the plaintiff in error, Tuesday, November 24th, 1812, the same writ of supersedeas was extended to a, judgment which had subsequently been obtained upon a forfeited forth-coming bond.

Wickham for the plaintiff in error. .

Wirt, contra.

*

See monographic *note*on “Libel and Slander” appended to Bourland v. Eidson, 8 Gratt. 27.

Supersedeas — Judgment on Forthcoming Bonds.— *Sw foot-note*to Monroe v. Webb, 4 Munf. 73, collecting cases citing the principal case.

Thursday, March 31st, 18Í4,

JUDGE ROAÑE

pronounced, the court’s opinion, that there was nó' error in the judgment, which was therefore affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Steven Roth, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofAlexander’s, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
August 5, 2004
/s/ Steven RothSteven Roth
#### § 156.200 Applicability.

This subpart applies to each vessel to be lightered and each service vessel engaged in a lightering operation in the marine environment beyond the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured when the oil or hazardous material lightered is destined for a port or place subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. This subpart does not apply to lightering operations involving public vessels, or to the dedicated response vessels and vessels of opportunity in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR parts 9 and 300) when conducting response activities, or to tank vessels of 150 gross tons or more engaged in the transfer of oil cargo between tank vessels at sea on or after April 1, 2012. These rules are in addition to the rules of subpart A of this part, as well as the rules in the applicable sections of parts 151, 153, 155, 156, and 157 of this chapter.

[CGD 93-081, 60 FR 45017, Aug. 29, 1995, as amended by USCG-2010-0194, 80 FR 5935, Feb. 4, 2015]
Case 0:22-cv-61033-JEM   Document 34   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022   Page 1 of 1
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

## Notice of Closed Meeting

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; The Effect of Supervised Practice Driving on Driving Performance Among Newly Licensed Teen Drivers.                    

*Date:*                         September 15, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of, Child Health and Human Development, NIH 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6680,                         *skandasa@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 17, 2011.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-21510 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Argued and submitted December 5, 1994,

reversed in part; otherwise affirmed January 25, 1995

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Francine Marie HOLM, *Appellant, and*Kevin Dean HOLM, *Respondent, and*William S. HOLM, *Intervenor-Respondent.*

(93P-20974; CA A84395)

888 P2d 1077

Stephen F. Mannenbach argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

*441Michael A. Bliven argued the cause for intervenorrespondent William S. Holm. With him on the brief were Emmons, Kropp, Kryger, Alexander, Egan & Allen P.C., and Mark Bliven and Bliven & Ross, P.C.

Dennis Sarriugarte waived appearance for respondent Kevin Dean Holm.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

WARREN, P. J.

*442WARREN, P. J.

Mother, who has custody of their child after dissolution of her marriage to father, appeals from a judgment granting grandparent visitation rights to the paternal grandfather. ORS 109.121. Mother argues that the trial court erred in awarding visitation rights. On *de novo*review, ORS 19.125(3), we reverse.

After mother filed the petition for dissolution, grandfather, who had regularly visited the child, brought this action for grandparent visitation rights. Those rights are purely statutory. ORS 109.121 provides, in pertinent part, that a grandparent may seek a court order establishing visitation rights if “the custodian of the child has denied the grandparent reasonable opportunity to visit the child.”1 The only issue is whether mother denied grandfather reasonable opportunities to visit the child.

 There is evidence that, after mother and father separated, she *occasionally*denied grandfather the opportunity to visit the child.2 However, denying visitation, by itself, is insufficient to establish visitation rights. There must be a denial of a reasonable opportunity to visit. *See Pointer and Pointer,*112 Or App 511, 829 P2d 1016, *rev den*313 Or 627 (1992). There is ample evidence in the record that mother allowed grandfather reasonable, regular contact with the child after mother and father separated, and before grandfather received temporary visitation rights. There is no evidence that mother ever unreasonably refused to let grandfather visit the child.3 Therefore, the predicate to court ordered visitation was absent and it was error for the trial court to order it.

Judgment allowing grandparent visitation reversed; otherwise affirmed.

1

 ORS 109.121 also requires that “the grandparent has established or has attempted to establish ongoing personal contact with the child.” The parties agree that grandfather has an ongoing personal relationship with child.

2

 The only evidence in the record about why mother declined to let grandfather visit child is that, on one of those occasions, child was ill.

3

 Grandfather refers to other evidence in the record that purportedly shows why mother unreasonably denied him visitation rights. That evidence refers to reasons why, while mother and father *were still living together,*they sometimes denied grandfather’s attempts to visit child.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 5, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-01031-CR

FREDYS ALBERTO CERRITOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1243158

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal in this case, signed by appellant, 

has been filed with this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this Court has not 

delivered an opinion, we grant appellant's request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the Clerk of the Court to 

issue the mandate of the Court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                           1,498
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,166
<INVENTORY>                                     11,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,195
<PP&E>                                          41,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,293
<BONDS>                                          8,658
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,143
<SALES>                                         42,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,457
<CGS>                                           23,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,852
<INCOME-TAX>                                       673
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,179
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,179
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04


</TABLE>
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22787-SCOLA/GOODMAN

LIORA SAMANDAROVA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOOKAH EXOTIX LLC, 

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE PITTMAN, 

AND ALEXANDRE ARKHIPOV,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING 

EXHIBIT “A” TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff, Liora Samandarova, notifies the Court of the filing of Exhibit “A” to her Motion 

for Default Final Judgment [ECF No. 34]. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on this 23rd 

day of February 2023 through filing in CM/ECF, and by email on Defendant, Alexandre Arkhipov, 

pro se, by email at bonamicoalex@gmail.com, 8028 N.W. 11th Ave., A, Miami, FL 33150.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2023 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
 the Form 10Q for December 31,1995, and is qualified in its entirety by
 reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000277595
<NAME> ENERGEN CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      258,745
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     86,184
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         112,922
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         9,351
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   2,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 470,022
<COMMON>                                           110
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       85,388
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             89,121
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 174,619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           131,494
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              28,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,775
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 134,134
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  470,022
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       78,823
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               657
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      74,050
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      74,707
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          4,116
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,543
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   5,659
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         3,381
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,278
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    2,278
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,178
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        2,747
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          (1,608)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

# Certification by Nick Padgett
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. §1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. [section] 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Inforte Corp. (the Company), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|March 7, 2003 |  | By: |  | Inforte Corp./s/ Nick PadgettNick Padgett,Chief Financial Officer | 
|------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |