alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 55689.

protests 155843-K/2342, etc. (Chicago).

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal' Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY REED,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, Sr. and ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

NEVADA,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 15-17490

D.C. No. 

2:14-cv-00027-JAD-CWH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 16, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER,

** and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Anthony Reed appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

federal habeas petition. We affirm. 

FILED

JUN 23 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
The state court’s determination that Reed’s counselors were not

constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to juror misconduct did not

“result[] in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). There is no evidence that juror number

244 engaged in misconduct. Thus, there were no legitimate grounds upon which

Reed’s defense counselors could have objected. Thus, their decision not to object

to did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). The remainder of Reed’s arguments are

not properly before us, because Reed raised them for the first time on appeal. See

United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24-G

                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned constitutes and
appoints JOSEPH HINES and CLARENCE J. BAUDHUIN, and each of them, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign a Form S-3 Registration Statement for filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission respecting the registration of shares of
Common Stock, $.001 par value, of Zila, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together
with any and all amendments (including post-effective amendments) to such
Registration Statement, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and all
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

DATED: July 8 , 1997
      --------


                                        /s/ Douglas L. Ayer
                                        ------------------------------
                                        DOUGLAS L. AYER

STATE OF CT              }
                         }    ss.
County of Fairfield      }

     On this 8 day of July , 1997, before me, the undersigned Notary Public,
personally appeared Douglas L. Ayer, known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same
for the purposes therein contained.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.



                                        /s/
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Notary Public


My commission expires: March 31, 2000
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



         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") of FirstFed Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the
undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby each certify that to the best of our knowledge:

      (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



\s\ B. K. Goodwin, III                                         August 13, 2003
-------------------------------------------                    ---------------
B. K. Goodwin, III, Chief Executive Officer                    Date


\s\ Lynn J. Joyce                                              August 13, 2003
-------------------------------------------                    ---------------
Lynn J. Joyce, Chief Financial Officer                         Date



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The information
furnished herein shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**ANTHONY R. PINKNEY,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 670 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 2nd day of August, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45504

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MORGAN LAU,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: October 5, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Elmore County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of three years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen 

years, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Morgan Lau pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years. Idaho 

Code § 18-1506(1)(b) and/or (d). The district court sentenced Lau to a unified term of ten years 

with three years determinate. Lau appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion 

by declining to grant probation or consider retaining jurisdiction.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the trial court to 

obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for 

probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction. 

State v. Chapel, 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 

567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s 

refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to 

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. State v. Beebe, 113 Idaho 

977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based 

upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction.

Therefore, Lau’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05580]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

48 CFR Parts 709 and 752

RIN 0412-AA76

Incorporate Various Administrative Changes and Internal Policies 
in to the USAID Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR)

AGENCY: U.S. Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Direct final rule; Corrections.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is 
issuing corrections to FR Doc. 2014-26051; Incorporate Various 
Administrative Changes and Internal Policies in to the USAID 
Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR), that was published on December 16, 2014 
(79 FR 74985).

DATES: Effective March 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyudmila Bond, Telephone: 202-567-4753 
or Email: lbond@usaid.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Corrections

    In rule FR Doc. 2014-26051 published in the Federal Register at 79 
FR 74985, December 16, 2015, make the following corrections:

Sec.  709.403  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 74992, in the definitions of ``Debarring official'' and 
``Suspending Official'' in Sec.  709.403, correct ``Senior Deputy 
Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Management'' to read ``Assistant 
Administrator, Bureau for Management, or designee as delegated in 
Agency policy found in ADS 103--Delegations of Authority''.

Sec.  752.7005  [Corrected]

    On page 75002, Sec.  752.7005(b)(1)(iv), remove the second 
sentence.

    Authority: Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 
2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR 
1979 Comp., p. 435.

Aman S. Djahanbani,
Chief Acquisition Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-05580 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
```
August 14, 1957

No. 61149.

Suit 4868.

#### D. N. & E. Walter & Co. and Hoyt, Sheptson & Sciaroni *v.*United States.

C. D. 1744 affirmed April 30, 1957. C. A. D. 652.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**Certification**

I, C. G. Kum certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of FCB Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2005; 

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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for the periods presented in this report; 

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

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: January 10, 2007
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 LEGACY BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 13a  14(a) / 15d14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Legacy Bancorp, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officers 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 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 companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over
financial reporting.
 March 22, 2006
 /s/ J. Williar DunlaevyJ. Williar DunlaevyChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             744
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                       781
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,753
<PP&E>                                         277,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 299,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,840
<BONDS>                                        122,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           916
<OTHER-SE>                                     126,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,180
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,540
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   108
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,611
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,993
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
        

</TABLE>
1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 -46 3- CV CI T I M OR T GAG E , I NC . AP P E L L ANT V . M A N SFI ELD I N D EPEND EN T SC H O O L A PPELL EES DI S T R I CT , CI T Y OFM ANS F I E L D, AN D TARRA NT CO UN TY, TE XA S

----- -----

FR O M THE 2 36TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h a v e c o n s i d e re d a p p e l l a n t’s“ U n o p p o s e d M o ti o n T o D i s m i s sA p p e a l .” It i s t he cou rt ’ s opi ni on t hat t he m ot i on sh oul d be gr ant ed; t her e fo re , w e d i s m i s sth e a p p e a l . SeeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .1 (a )(1 ), 4 3 .2 (f). C o s t so ft h e a p p e a l s h a l l b e p a i d b ya p p e l l a n t , f o rwh i c h l e te x e c u t i on i s s u e . S eeTe x. R. App . P. 43. 4.
P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ.DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r18, 2008
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 6 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 7 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 8 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 9 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 10 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 11 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 12 of 13
Case 3:06-cv-05163-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 13 of 13
No. 67199.

protests 60/11756, etc. (New York).

#### Royal Crown Derby et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 245 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.245
                                      Agreed to February 8, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

 

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 764) to amend the Victims of 
Crime Act of 1984, with respect to certain increases in funds, the 
Clerk of the House shall make the following corrections:
    In section 104(a)(1), in the matter amending section 1402(d)(2) of 
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984--
        (1) strike ``the next'' the first place it appears and insert 
    ``The first''; and
        (2) strike ``the next'' the second place it appears and insert 
    ``the first''.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```