alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Comparative Job Performance by Age: Office Workers

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Comparative Job Performance by Age: Office Workers : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1273*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										February 1960,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4549,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JUAN CARLOS RIVERA-CEREZO,

a.k.a. Juan Carlos Rivera,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71918

Agency No. A092-552-077

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Rivera-Cerezo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

FILED

MAR 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71918

Cheuk Fung S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny

the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Rivera-Cerezo’s 2006 conviction for

violating California Penal Code § 273.5(a) is an aggravated felony crime of

violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), where he was actually sentenced to a

term of imprisonment of at least one year. See Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d

1080, 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (a conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a) is

categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)). Rivera-Cerezo’s

contention that the two-year sentence he incurred cannot be attributed to his

offense for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) is unpersuasive. The agency

therefore did not err in concluding that Rivera-Cerezo was statutorily ineligible for

cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 74-5972.

#### Chacon *v.*Younger, Attorney General of California, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 14364
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus GARY MAX ANDERSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:21

- cr

- 00131

- ACA

- JHE

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-14364 Date Filed: 06/10/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 21

- 14364

Before R OSENBAUM , J ILL P RYOR , and G RANT , C ircuit J udges

. PER CURIAM: Appellee’s “Motion to File Motion to Dismiss Under Seal” is GRANTED. The Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’ s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 51 (11th Cir. 19 93) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Bascomb , 451 F.3d 1292, 129 7 (11th Cir. 2006) ( appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by comments the court makes during sentencing” ); United Sta tes v. Grinard

- Henry , 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error). USCA11 Case: 21-14364 Date Filed: 06/10/2022 Page: 2 of 2
No. 44310.

#### Protests 968668-G, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

Savings banks stipulated to be similar to those the subject of Abstract 42749 were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
33871.

#### ADKINS v. ADKINS.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

This appeal is from a contempt order for failure to make child support payments under a divorce decree. The order provided for purge of the contempt upon payment. We affirm.

1. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are not *249required in a motion for contempt. *Hines v. Hines,*237 Ga. 755 (229 SE2d 744) (1976).

Submitted July 28, 1978

Decided September 27, 1978.

*James W. Smith,*for appellant.

*Tom Strickland,*for appellee.

2. We hold that the trial court did not err in failing to inquire whether appellant was entitled to counsel under the rationale of Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (92 SC 2006) (1972). A contempt for failure to pay child support is a civil proceeding. Its primary purpose is to provide a remedy for the collection of child support by coercing compliance with such an order. Argersinger relates to criminal prosecutions and is not applicable here.

3. Code Ann. § 24-2615 (5) provides: "The superior courts have authority ... 5. To punish contempt by fines not exceeding $200, and by imprisonment not exceeding 20 days.” Adkins thus claims the six month sentence imposed on him is illegal. We disagree. "A failure or refusal to comply with an order of court requiring the payment of alimony and attorney’s fees is a continuing contempt, and the court may enter a judgment that the party so refusing be imprisoned until lie shall comply. In such case the time of imprisonment is not within the limitation of the statute relative to a single act of contempt, that the duration of imprisonment must not exceed twenty days. *Tindall v. Nisbet,*113 Ga. 1114 (4), 1135 [39 SE 450] [1901].” *Gray v. Gray,*127 Ga. 345 (4) (56 SE 438) (1906). Accord, *Cobb v. Black,*34 Ga. 162 (1865). And in *Brown v. Brown,*237 Ga. 122 (227 SE2d 14) (1976), we held that a determinable rather than indefinite sentence was not error as long as the respondent may purge himself. There is no merit to Adkins’ contention that the six month sentence was unlawful.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET OF OPTIMUM SOURCE INTERNATIONAL,  LTD. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND
THE RELATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    50
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 50
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2
<OTHER-SE>                                     (121)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   50
<SALES>                                        46
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46
<CGS>                                          14
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (78)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (78)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

June 12, 1961

No. 65784.

#### S. H. Kress & Company *v.*United States,

protest 60/4435 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
January 28, 1949

No. 7653.

#### United *States*v. *Cox & Fahner (Steel Union Sheet Piling Inc.) et al.*

Entered at New York, N. Y., and New Orleans, La. Reap. Dec. 7627. Motion by appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District 

MARCH 10, 2014  THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).   1. Case No.  SD32153   Re: MARK DEIHL and   WILLIAM NYSTROM, Plaintiffs-Respondents,   v.   RUSSELL WRIGHT, individually and as   Trustee of the Doris E. Wright Trust dated   September 6, 2006 and D/B/A Bluegrass   Holdings and D/B/A Penny Investments   and D/B/A Freedom Financial, LLC and   D/B/A FINANCIAL FREEDOM, LLC   and D/B/A MLO CONSULTING, and   BGI LIMITED COMPANY, and BBG   CORPORATION, and WILD ROSE   ESTATES, LLC, Defendants-Respondents,   and   OLIVIER FAMILY INTERESTS, LTD.   and GBS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants-Appellants,    and   JERRY R. LAHR, as Trustee of   Penny Investments, Defendant.  2. Case No.  SD33033   Re: ROBERT SHELTON (Deceased),   ALICE SHELTON, Respondent,   vs.   TREASURER OF THE STATE OF   MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF THE   SECOND INJURY FUND, Appellant.
# C_2012295EN.01003501.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/35

---

Action brought on 1 August 2012 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-84/12)

2012/C 295/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing the applicant direct access to the final report of the findings of the Invalidity Committee and access to the diagnosis of the third doctor of that committee.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 17 October 2011 denying the applicant direct access to the final report of the findings of the Invalidity Committee and access to the diagnosis of the third doctor; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 17 October 2011 denying the applicant direct access to the final report of the findings of the Invalidity Committee and access to the diagnosis of the third doctor;

| — | Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 24 March 2012 constitution a response to the claim submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 24 March 2012 constitution a response to the claim submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the defendant to pay damages with late-payment and compensatory interest at the rate of 6.75% in respect of the non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay damages with late-payment and compensatory interest at the rate of 6.75% in respect of the non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm suffered;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 10.15

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------




Summary of Loan  Agreement by and between  Shenzhen  BAK Battery  Co.,  Ltd. and
Longgang Branch, Shenzhen Development Bank dated May 18, 2005.

Main contents:

>>   Contract number: Shenfa Longgang Dai Zi NO.20050518001;
>>   Loan Principal: RMB10 million;
>>   Loan term: May 18, 2005 - April 30, 2006;
>>   Interest rate: fixed at 6.138%;
>>   Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 6.138% plus 50% * 6.138%;
>>   Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 6.138% * 2;
>>   Repayment:  interest is payable monthly  (20th);  principal is due on April
     30, 2006;
>>   Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the Company;
>>   Advanced  repayment  of loan needs to be approved by  Development  Bank and
     Development  Bank is  entitled  to charge a month's  interest  based on the
     prepaid loan principal as penalty;
>>   If any of the following  occurs,  Development Bank is entitled to terminate
     Loan Agreement 2 before its term and withdraw all loans provided and cancel
     all loans not yet provided under Loan Agreement 2:
     |X|  The Company terminates operation or is stopped from operation;
     |X|  The Company  provides  untrue  documents or hide  important  financial
          information about its operation;
     |X|  The Company  intentionally  evades bank debts by way of related  party
          transaction or other means;
     |X|  The Company uses loan proceeds for purposes  other than what is agreed
          without the  consent of  Development  Bank;  |X|  Occurrence  of other
          instances  which  endangers  or may  endanger  the  safety of the loan
          provided by Development Bank under Loan Agreement 2;
     >>   Breach of contract  penalties:  suspension of loan unprovided,  demand
          prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity;  imposition
          of punitive  interest;  compensation  for Development  Bank's expenses
          incurred due to the Company's breach of contract such as lawyer's fee,
          travel cost in case of litigation, etc.
>>   Special  terms:  If the Company  belongs to the group client  category,  it
     should  report  to  Development  Bank in  writing  within  10 days from the
     occurrence of any related party transaction  involving more than 10% of the
     Company's net asset.

Term that have been omitted:  loan  arrangement;  interest clearing of the loan;
drawing of the loan;  interest  penalty of loan;  rights and  obligation  of the
borrower;  rights and obligations of the lender;  expenses and service  charges;
settlement  account;   modification  and  termination  of  the  loan  agreement;
miscellaneous;  undertakings and  representations of the lender;  applicable law
and dispute settlement; validity; and attention.
No. 42074.

#### Protests 967556-G, etc., of Ackerman Gould Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.1   WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada.  Date: May 6, 2011/s/ Donald R. Mayer
Donald R. Mayer
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
# C_2012319EN.01001701.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/17

---

Action brought on 3 July 2012 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-69/12)

2012/C 319/30

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N.D. Dane, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Europol

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s implicit decision rejecting the applicant’s claim and his complaint seeking payment of the sums agreed in the amicable out-of-court settlement entered into by the parties in the context of earlier proceedings before the Court.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the implicit decision to reject the claim of 26 May 2011 and annul the implicit decision to reject the complaint of 9 December 2011 against the implicit decision rejecting the aforementioned claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implicit decision to reject the claim of 26 May 2011 and annul the implicit decision to reject the complaint of 9 December 2011 against the implicit decision rejecting the aforementioned claim;

| — | Order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay the costs.

---
### B EFORE 

### T HE 

### US D EPARTMENT OF 

### T RA NSP O RTATI O N

W ASHIN G TON
, D.C.

In the ma tter of:

Docket No .: FAA-2008-0677 Supplemental proposed rule on qualification, serv ice, and use of crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers

Request by the International Air Trans port Association (IATA) for a 180-day

extens ion of the comment period

The International Air Transport Associat ion (IATA) respectfully r equests a 180 day extension to file comments on th e Supplem e ntal Notice of Proposed

Rulemak i ng, “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatcher s,” published in t he F ederal Register on M a y 20, 2011. IATA and its 230 member airlines have a sign ificant interest in the out come of this rulemaking

process.

IATA is currently analyzing the proposed rule and gathering information from

member airlines to res pond comprehensivel y

. The response to this complex and signific ant proposal requires an extensiv e research and coordination effort, which is not poss i ble in a 60 day comment period. Therefore, we reques t an add i tional 180 days beyond July 19, 2011, which will affo rd the requisite t i me to provide

valuable int e rnational input on this important proposal.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Douglas E. Lavin Regional Vice President, North A m erica International Air Transport Association

601 Penns ylvania Ave., NW Suite 300, North Building Washington, D.C. 20004

Tel: 202-628-9292

Fax: 202-628-9448 lavind@iat a.org
[09-14-1999  12:56:18]
[19991171714 C $75.00]
[FILED CUSTOMER COPY ]
[DONETTA DAVIDSON    ]
[COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE]



                                 ARTICLES OF MERGER

THIS IS TO CERTIFY:

1.  PARTIES.  Pursuant to the terms of that certain definitive
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated September 8,  1999 (the
"Agreement"), Jones Naughton Entertainment, Inc. ("JNNE"), a
corporation formed pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado,
has merged with Go Online Networks Corporation, a corporation formed
pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, effective September
8, 1999 (the "Effective Date").

2.  APPROVAL.  The terms of the Agreement were approved by the
affirmative vote of the Board of Directors of both JNNE and GONC on
August 12, 1999 by unanimous written consent, by the Shareholder of
GONC by unanimous written consent on August 12, 1999 and by a
majority of the Shareholders of JNNE on September 8, 1999 at a
special meeting of shareholders held pursuant to proper notice.  The
number of votes cast in favor of the merger by each voting group
entitled to vote separately on the merger was sufficient for
approval by that voting group.

3.  SHARE EXCHANGE.  The Agreement provides that all of the
shareholders of JNNE, representing 71,302,677 issued and outstanding
common shares, shall exchange their respective shares for an
aggregate of 71,302,677 of GONC common stock.  The Agreement also
provides that all of the holders of preferred stock of JNNE,
representing 499,333 issued and outstanding preferred shares, shall
exchange their respective shares for an aggregate of 499,333 shares
of GONC preferred stock.  Immediately prior to the Effective Date,
there were 100 common shares of GONC issued and outstanding.

4.  SERVICE.  For purposes herein, all notices and service of
process may be effectuated by tendering the same to M. Richard
Cutler, Esq., 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 800, Newport Beach,
CA 92660, legal counsel to GONC.

5.  SURVIVING ENTITY.  Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement,
GONC shall be the surviving entity and, upon the Effective Date and
upon filing of these Articles of Merger with the Colorado Secretary
of State and issuance of an applicable Certificate of Merger by the
Secretary of State of Colorado, JNNE shall cease to exist as a bona
fide Colorado corporation.  The address of the principal office of
GONC is 5681 Beach Boulevard, Suite 101, Buena Park, CA 90621.

6.  COUNTERPARTS.  This Articles of Merger may be executed in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original
document, but together shall be deemed to constitute only one
agreement.


Executed as of this 8th day of September, 1999

JONES NAUGHTON ENTERTAINMENT,                    GO ONLINE NETWORKS
INC.                                             CORPORATION

/s/Joseph M. Naughton                            /s/Joseph M. Naughton
By: Joseph M. Naughton,                          By: Joseph M. Naughton,
Chief Executive Officer                          Chief Executive Officer