alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60352

Summary Calendar

TOMAS CERON-SILVAS,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A091-824-863

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined, inter alia, that

Tomas Ceron-Silvas was ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation,

pursuant to a waiver of inadmissibility under former § 212(c) of the 1

Immigration and Nationality Act, “because an aggravated felony crime of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 23, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994).

1

Case: 11-60352 Document: 00511831768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2012
No. 10-60342

violence has no comparable ground of inadmissibility.” However, after CeronSilva’s petition for review was filed, the Supreme Court decided Judulang v.

Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011). In Judulang the Court considered the BIA’s

“comparable-grounds” rule for determining whether an alien is eligible for relief

under former § 212(c). The Court held that the comparable-grounds rule is

arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §

706(2)(A). Judulang, 132 S. Ct. at 483-84. The Supreme Court explained that

“[i]n rejecting th[e] rule, we do not preclude the BIA from trying to devise

another, equally economical policy respecting eligibility for § 212(c) relief, so long

as it comports with everything held in both this decision and [I.N.S. v.] St. Cyr[,]

[533 U.S. 289 (2001)].” Id. at 490. Accordingly, it is proper to remand this case

to the BIA to reconsider its decision regarding whether Ceron-Silva is eligible for

§ 212(c) relief.

We GRANT Ceron-Silva’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s

judgment, and REMAND the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of

Judulang.

2

Case: 11-60352 Document: 00511831768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2012
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTIONS 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of AutoFund Servicing, Inc., on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jesse Whittenton, Chief Financial and Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sections 906 of the Sabanes-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 al material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

AutoFund Servicing, Inc.



By: /s/ Jesse Whittenton

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

Jesse Whittenton
Chief Financial and

Executive Officer

February 16, 2004
Before the Third Division,

October 2, 1957

No. 61234.

protests 192181-K, etc. (New York).

#### R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 32**Certification  of  Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted  pursuant  to  section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002.			     I,  Dwight Webb,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report  on  Form 10-KSB of Vita Equity, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report  on  Form  10-KSB  fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Vita Equity, Inc.			                                                                                       By:     /s/ Dwight Webb                     			                                                                                       Name:   Dwight Webb                                                                                       Title:     Chief  Executive  Officer,                                                                                                   Chief  Financial Officer                                                                                       Date:    April 14, 2006

----
Before the Second Division,

January 20, 1949

No. 52833.

#### Mason Bros. & Tarlin et al. *v.*United States,

protests 938111-G, etc. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
i -. ~.. 

1 

.~I’ 

f.“~ OFF+OF THE AmORNEYQENEtiL OF TEXAS 

AtJmfN 

&tt &tQniO, TOSaS ". 

near Birt 
Honorable E. 0. Garvey, page 2 

taxes on vhich said poll or ad valorem tax the 

interest and penalties have been released by 

any of the provisions of this Act shall be and 

the same are hereby released, and no such costs 

shall hereafter be charged, aollected, or accounted for, provided, hovever, that any ccsts 

that are now due and payable to any officer 

or official shall remain a valid obligation, 

notwithstanding the provislone hereof. 

time W 

Anyone desiring to pay at one 

the delinquent taxes for only one yesx 

wherein such taxes are delinquent for :4ore than 

one year shall have the right to pay the sane 

but vithout remlsslon of penalties and interest; 

provided, hovever that any persons ava&lFng them- 

., selves. of. the b0sefit.e. of this Act shall .be required to pay all dellnauent ad valorem taxes 

due the State and oounty on an7 specific piece 

of property on vhiah suoh taxes are delinquent 

before the penalties and interest may be released as herein providedi tionditioned that a 

six per cent (6%) penalty on the total amount 

.;:i:j:::!!j:/:!; delinquent be, paid on suoh property.” 

You suggest’ that the $1.06~ redemption foe would seem 

to be due in the case mentioned by you since “the penalty and 

interest” have not been released in full, there being charged 

a 6s penalty. Hovever it seems rather olear to us that the release of aoste provided in Seotion 2 will apply to this tme of 

case the same as if the taxpayer should pay all his delinquent 

taxes and not be oharged vith a 6% penalty. As already mentioned Seotion 1 of House Bill 76 provides a complete release of the 

old penalty and accrued interest. The penaltp of 6% levied in 

Seation 3 constitutes the levy of a fresh penalty, not the retention of a part of the old penalty. Henoe, ve ar4 aonatrained 

to the viev that our opinion 190. O-3634 is applloable to this 

case also, and that if on or before Tiovember 1, 1941, the property owner pays all fhe delinquent taxes due against a apeoiflo 

piece of property he stands relieved of this oost, although taking the 696 penalty. 

Your18 v4rg truly 

ATTOFtXEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

BY
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
       (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                              UNITED STATES CODE)

   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the
"Act"), I, Mark M. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Reliant Resources, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge:

      (a)  the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
   December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
   Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
   material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash
   flows of the Company.

<TABLE>
<S>                            <C>
Date: April 30, 2003                           /s/  MARK M. JACOBS
                               ----------------------------------------
                                                  Mark M. Jacobs
                               Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
</TABLE>

   The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

   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.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Wayne W. Byers, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ebank Financial Services, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting;     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 9, 2006         By:       /s/ Wayne W. Byers    Wayne W. Byers, Chief Financial Officer
Before the Third Division,

January 9, 1948

No. 52108.

petition 6514-R (Duluth).

#### Estate of V. W. Davis, Deceased *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial a licensed customhouse broker testified that he was familiar with the practice of the deceased petitioner in connection with making entries; that the entered value was the invoice value which he believed to be correct; that at the time of entry it had been the practice of the appraiser to notify the importer of any difference in value so that the entry could be amended; and that when the merchandise was appraised a new appraiser had been appointed and no opportunity to amend was given. On the record presented the court held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM PENTACON, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         140
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                120,985
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           174,087
<PP&E>                                      19,431
<DEPRECIATION>                              (5,684)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             323,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      105,020
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       168
<OTHER-SE>                                 118,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               323,122
<SALES>                                    216,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           216,066
<CGS>                                      150,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              199,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (70)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,220
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,901
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            319
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   319
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02


</TABLE>
Federal Housing Finance Agency

Constitution Center

400 7th Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20219 

Telephone: (202) 649-3800 

Facsimile: (202) 649-1071 

www.fhfa.gov 

FHLBank System at 100 Roundtable: 

Member Products and Services 

March 1, 2023 | 1:00 – 4:00 p.m. E.T.

1. Do the FHLBanks offer the right mix of products and services to members? What market 

segments are well-served by the FHLBanks’ programs and services? What market 

segments are not well-served? 

2. How do FHLBank members use advances and letters of credit? To what extent are they 

used to support affordable housing? Community and economic development? 

3. How can the FHLBanks play a larger role in supporting affordable, equitable, 

sustainable, and resilient housing through their core business lines or with only limited 

subsidies (that is, beyond AHP)? Is there a role for pilot programs? 

4. Should there be a common set of terms across the FHLBanks for some or all products? If 

so, what should those common terms be? If not, why not, and (when and) how should the 

terms differ? 

5. Should there be changes to the eligible types of collateral? What factors should be 

considered in determining the types of collateral the FHLBanks should be able to accept? 

6. Are there other services the FHLBanks [could or should] provide to members such as 

training on various issues (such as cybersecurity) or hosting events through which 

members and others in the community can share ideas and information? To what extent 

are the FHLBanks doing this now? Are there areas in which they are uniquely qualified 

to provide assistance? 

7. Are the Community Investment Program (CIP) and Community Investment Cash 

Advance Program (CICA) being appropriately leveraged? Are there barriers to greater 

participation and if so, what are they? 

To submit in advance: 

• What is the single most important change you would recommend to the FHLBanks’

products and services? If you believe no changes are needed, explain why not. What 

public policy purpose would be served by your recommendation? How would it affect 

the safety and soundness and mission achievement of the FHLBanks? 

• What other changes, if any, would you recommend to the FHLBanks’ products and 

services? 

• Other bullet points outlining the points you would like to discuss.
**Exhibit 15**

November 10, 2008 

PC Connection, Inc. 

730Milford Road 

Merrimack, NH 

We have reviewed, in accordancewith the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of PC Connection, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2008 and 2007, as indicated in ourreport dated November 10, 2008; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our reportreferred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-40172, 333-50845, 333-50847, 333-66450, 333-69981, 333-83943,333-91584, 333-106652, 333-130389, and 333-144065 on Form S-8. 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under theSecurities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

Deloitte & Touche 

Boston, Massachusetts
No. 60382.

protests 194297-K, etc. (Honolulu).

#### Alexander & Baldwin, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sazae similar in all material respects to the commodity involved in *Pacific Mutual Sales Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 100, C. D. 1758), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 52835.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 63413-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entry 824283. The protest was sustained to this extent.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10173

 Summary Calendar 

__________________

GARY FRANCIS COURTNEY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J. HAVARD, Parole Officer, ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-MC-4-C

- - - - - - - - - -

(April 21, 1995)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Gary Francis Courtney seeks to appeal in forma pauperis

(IFP) in his appeal from the district court's denial of his

application to obtain pauper status to proceed with his civil

rights action. Liberally construed, Courtney argues that the

district court based its decision on erroneous information

concerning his economic status.

 The denial of IFP status is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Division, 507 F.2d
No. 95-10173

-2-

1242, 1243-44 (5th Cir. 1975). Whether a party may proceed IFP

in the district court is based solely upon economic criteria. 

Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976). Poverty

sufficient to qualify does not require absolute destitution. 

Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339

(1948).

 Courtney presented credible evidence that the inmate trust

fund officer erroneously reported that the total deposits made to

his account in the 90-day period preceding his application was

$472.74. The evidence showed that Courtney had total deposits of

$55 in September, October, and November of 1994 and a balance in

his account of $28.46. The determination that Courtney did not

meet the economic criteria because he had deposits of $472.74 was

an abuse of discretion. 

 Accordingly, Courtney has presented a nonfrivolous issue

for appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

1983). IT IS ORDERED that his motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the

judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is

REMANDED for further proceedings. See Clark v. Williams, 693

F.2d 381, 381-82 (5th Cir. 1982). Among the alternatives

available to the district court is the imposition of a partial

payment of the filing fee. See Green v. Estelle, 649 F.2d 298,

301-02 (5th Cir. 1981).