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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6776

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTOINE LAVAR DIXON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-01-19; CA-04-39-7-F)

Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 27, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antoine Lavar Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Although the district court’s order does not refer to Dixon’s

motion as a successive § 2255 motion, such a conclusion can be

inferred from the court’s reasoning.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Antoine Lavar Dixon seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. Because Dixon's motion did not assert a

defect in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued

the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the motion

was properly characterized a successive § 2255 motion under our

decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th

Cir.2003).* 

To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a

§ 2255 action, Dixon must establish entitlement to a certificate of

appealability. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-70 (4th

Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent

"a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
- 3 -

record and conclude that Dixon has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. To the extent that Dixon's notice of appeal and informal

brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See

Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
May 14, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20860 Summary Calendar

EMILIO GONZALEZ-MONTERREY,
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-01-CV-3014)

-------------------- Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner-Appellant Emilio Gonzalez-Monterrey (“Gonzalez”),

immigration detainee number A24787029, appeals the district court’s

denial of his 21 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the
right of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain him

indefinitely in light of the Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas v.

Davis
, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Gonzalez is an excludable alien who is

a Cuban national.In Zadvydas , the Supreme Court set up a framework in which

a deportable alien could establish the unreasonableness of his

continued detention and obtain his release, albeit supervised, in a

habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 533 U.S. at 701.

Gonzalez’s argument that Zadvydas sho uld apply equally to

excludable aliens like himself is f oreclosed by our decision in

Rios v. INS , ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Jan. 28, 2003, No. 02-40766),

2003 WL 734159 at *1. Gonzalez’s petition is governed by our

holding in Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 988 F.2d 1437, 1440-47 (5th

Cir.), a mended by Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 997 F.2d 11 22 (5th

Cir. 1993), that there are no time limits on the detention of

exclude d aliens who have been denied entry. S ee Rios
, 2003 WL

734159 at *1. The district court did not err in denying the

petition.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.15


 


AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this 30th day of December, 2021 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between Nova Lifestyle, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Jeffery Chuang (“Employee”).
The Company and Employee are sometimes referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Employee are party to that certain Employment Agreement, dated August 11, 2021 (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of the Company has approved to increase the salary of the Executive by 10% from $50,000 to $55,000 per year, effective
from January 1, 2022; and


 


WHEREAS,
capitalized terms in this Amendment that are not otherwise defined have the meanings given those terms in the Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.
Section 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


3.1
Salary. Employee’s salary shall be $55,000.00 per year (the “Salary”) payable monthly, effective from
January 1, 2022.


 


2.
Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement continues in full force and effect.


 


3.
This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.


 


4.
This Amendment shall take effect on Effective Date.


 


5.
This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada, without giving effect to the conflict
of law principles thereof. Each Party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts sitting in Clark
County, Nevada.


 


[signature
page follows]


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this Amendment to Employment Agreement have duly executed it as of the day and year first above written.


 


	COMPANY:	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 	 	 
	NOVA
    LIFESTYLE, INC.	 	Jeffery
    Chuang
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Tawny Lam	 	By:	/s/
    Jeffery Chuang
	Print
    Name:	Tawny
    Lam	 	 	 
	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALJIT SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70350

Agency No. A095-568-815

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 22, 2014** 

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

 Baljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

JUL 30 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d

983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as

untimely where the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), Singh failed to show that some of the evidence

was not previously available and could not have been presented at his previous

hearing, see 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), and Singh otherwise failed to demonstrate

changed conditions that qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for

filing motions to reopen, see id.; Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th

Cir. 2008) (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility

determination). We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA ignored or failed to

adequately consider either his identity documents or the country condition

evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91

(BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced decision). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

2 12-70350
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HAROLD R. JAGOW, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 503, 42 CMR 105

No. 22,910

June 19, 1970

*Lieutenant James S. Bailey,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The appellant entered pleas of guilty to offenses of which one was wrongful possession of an unauthorized armed forces identification card with *intent to deceive.*The memorandum of pretrial agreement, however, described the charge preferred as simply the wrong*504ful possession of an identification card —a lesser included offense. The plea of guilty was negotiated on this basis. Moreover, the finding on the greater offense was approved by the convening authority, yet the staff judge advocate’s review treats the findings as a conviction of the lesser included offense. The action of the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction is presumably premised on this latter basis. Whether the appellant understood the nature of the charge and whether there was ever a meeting of the minds between Government and defense in this regard raise serious doubt as to the providence of the appellant’s plea of guilty to the charged offense. The inquiry into the adequacy of the plea is of little assistance, since the military judge did not delineate the elements of any offense. The appellant’s knowledge of the charge cannot be measured, therefore. Reversal is required under these circumstances. United States v Boyd, 18 USCMA 581, 40 CMR 293 (1969).

Accordingly, the finding of guilty as to specification 2, Charge II, is set aside. The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to tbe Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered on the original charge or the Court of Military Review may affirm the lesser included offense of wrongful possession of an identification card and reassess the sentence.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 1, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D20-0486 & 3D20-1016

Lower Tribunal No. 16-22065

________________

Maynor Mendoza, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company,

Appellee.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alexander 

Bokor, Judge.

Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi, and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), 

for appellants.

Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, and Scott J. Frank (Tampa), for 

appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed.
April 3, 1972

No. 72-5

#### Johnnie L. Goodman, Formerly PVT, U. S. Marine Corps v Secretary of the Navy, et al.

On consideration of the “Affidavit of Johnnie L. Goodman,” construed by the Court as a Petition for Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order of this Court issued in the above-entitled action on March 15, 1972 (21 USCMA 242, 45 CMR 16), it, by the Court, this 3d day of April 1972,

ORDERED:

That said Petition for Reconsideration be, and the same is hereby, denied.
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Regency Affiliates, Inc.
(the "Company") for the six month period ended June 30, 2009 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence S. Levy, 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.
 
 Dated:  September
29, 2009


By: /s/ Laurence S.
Levy


Laurence
S. Levy


President
and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Allen Barber, on behalf of himself and

those similarly situated,

Plaintiff

 v.

Premier Courier, Inc.,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:13-cv-00001

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

The parties’ March 12, 2013 joint motion to stay (doc. 22), which the Magistrate

Judge also treats as a motion to continue the Rule 16 scheduling conference noticed for

April 18 at 10:00 a.m., is GRANTED.

Counsel state that the parties will participate in a mediation with a private

mediator on May 21. Counsel are DIRECTED to call my office (614.719.3370) on or

before May 28, 2013 to advise me of the status of their clients’ negotiations and, if the

case cannot been resolved by settlement at this time, to reschedule the Rule 16

scheduling conference. 

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:13-cv-00001-ALM-MRA Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/18/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 39036.

#### Protests 222167-G, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain articles are in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 4.2


 





BELITE
BIO, INC


 


	Number	Ordinary Shares







Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman
Islands


 


Share capital is US$50,000 divided
into

500,000,000 shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each, comprising of


(i) [ ] Ordinary Shares of a par
value of US$0.0001 each, and


(ii) [ ] shares of a par value
of US$0.0001 each, of such class or classes (however designated) as the board of directors may determine in accordance with Articles
8 and 9 of the Articles of Association of the Company


 





THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT                                                                          
is the registered holder of                                                                           Ordinary
Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and                   Articles of Association thereof.


 


EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company
on the                            day of                                                              by:


 


	DIRECTOR
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2013

s0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

147045

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHI GAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147045

COA: 312330

Wayne CC: 07

- 021059

- FC

MICHAEL TYRONE WITHERSPOON, a/k/a

MICHEAL T. WITHERSPOON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 6 , 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Before the First Division,

November 29, 1949

No. 53744.

protests 644579-G, etc. (New York).

#### L. Bamberger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 53756.

protests 121152-K, etc. (New York).

#### Glenby Fraser *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
SERVED: FEBRUARY 12, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JETTECH, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-1079 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012NM030058) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

--.. ....... . 

Attachment - Service List 
FedEral Aviation Administration 

800 ndependence Avenue, S.W. 

Was 'ngton, DC 20591 

Atte~tion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

i Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0 01 

Jolnt R. "Rob" Irwin, President 

JET!fECH, LLC, Respondent 

117$7 W. Ken Caryl Avenue, F-503 

Littleton, CO 80127 

TEll: 303-697-4262 

F 4: 303-697-8080 

Micjltael L. Poindexter, Respondent's Counsel 

La~ Offices of Michael L. Poindexter 

213~ Montane Drive E. 

Gol~en, CO 80401 

TEI!-: 303-526-1980 

FACK: ~03-526-1981 ! 

Kyte E. Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel 

Ofdce of Regional Counsel, Northwest Mountain Re ion, ANM-7 

F e~eral Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Rertton, WA 98057 

TEt: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

' 

i Th1 Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative 

0 ce of Hearings, M-20 

U .. Department of Transportation 

12qo New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

W~shington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

F ADc: 202-366-7536 

awJudge 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-1079 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

i 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by pedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

A v~ation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wi bur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, 

DCI20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

I 

-2-
Exhibit 12.2
 United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 and Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements
 Nine Months EndedSeptember 30,(In millions)
    
    2008
    
    
    2007Earnings (loss):Earnings (loss) before income taxes & adjustments
for minority interest and equity earnings of
affiliates
    
    $
    (4,065
    )
    
    $
    814Add (deduct):Fixed charges, from below
    
    
    612
    
    
    
    683Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    Distributed earnings of affiliates
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    2Interest capitalized
    
    
    (16
    )
    
    
    (14
    )Minority interest
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    (2
    )Earnings (loss) as adjusted
    
    $
    (3,469
    )
    
    $
    1,483Fixed charges:Interest expensed and capitalized and amortization
of debt discountsand issuance costs (a)
    
    $
    392
    
    
    $
    506Portion of rental expense representative
of the interest factor
    
    
    220
    
    
    
    177Fixed charges, as above
    
    
    612
    
    
    
    683Preferred stock dividend requirements (pre-tax) (b)
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    13Fixed charges including preferred stock
dividends
    
    $
    615
    
    
    $
    696Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    (c)
    
    
    
    2.17Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred
dividend requirements
    
    
    (c)
    
    
    
    2.13
 (a)
    
    Amortization of debt discounts includes amortization of fresh-start valuation
discounts.(b)
    
    2007 dividends were adjusted using an estimated 2007 effective tax rate of
approximately 43%. The Company had an immaterial tax rate in the 2008 period.(c)
    
    Earnings were inadequate to cover both fixed charges and fixed charges and preferred
dividend requirements by $4.1 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2008.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      1,260,910
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    33,119
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         194,592
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       352,234
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,840,855
<COMMON>                                       281,084
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      (332)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            158,165
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 438,917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,351
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           644,619
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      45,120
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  74,574
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    16,769
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               342
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 616,163
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1,840,855
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      162,474
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           11,487
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     128,310
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     139,797
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        22,677
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             558
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 23,235
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       14,273
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,962
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    51
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  8,911
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       10,090
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      45,043
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         26,885
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.64



</TABLE>