alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ENRIQUE BERMUDEZ-ALONSO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72922

Agency No. A098-953-465

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Enrique Bermudez-Alonso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to continue his removal

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

FILED

MAY 20 2013

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 agency’s denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,

526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and review de novo questions of

law and due process claims, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921

(9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Bermudez-Alonso’s

motion to continue in order to wait for the enactment of comprehensive

immigration reform, because he failed to demonstrate good cause for a

continuance. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n IJ

‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)). 

Bermudez-Alonso conceded his ineligibility for relief from removal under current

law, and the basis for his motion remained a merely speculative possibility at the

time of his removal hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a

continuance based on . . . speculations.”); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d

at 1247 (rejecting an abuse-of-discretion challenge to an IJ’s refusal to continue

removal proceedings where “no relief was then immediately available”).

The agency correctly considered the relevant legal standard and provided a

reasoned explanation for its decision denying Bermudez-Alonso’s motion to

continue. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[The BIA

must] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to

2 11-72922
enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely

reacted.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The agency did not violate Bermudez-Alonso’s due process rights by

denying his motion to continue, because he received a full and fair hearing. See

Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 926-27 (“Where an alien is given a full and fair

opportunity to be represented by counsel, prepare an application for . . . relief, and

to present testimony and other evidence in support of the application, he or she has

been provided with due process.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 11-72922
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Empyrean Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert L. Lee, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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 financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Robert L. Lee Robert L. Lee, President and CEO   Dated:  December 19, 2008
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06942

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06942\06942_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06942\06942_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06942\06942_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06942\06942_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

06942\Certification Statement Plant ID 06942.PDF Plant certification statement

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,167
<SECURITIES>                                    12,601
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,448
<INVENTORY>                                      9,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,694
<PP&E>                                          29,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,034
<BONDS>                                         92,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           255
<OTHER-SE>                                    (38,306)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,073
<SALES>                                         43,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,490
<CGS>                                           37,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,294
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,524)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,524)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,524)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)


</TABLE>
#### Jeanette Grace KING, Petitioner, v. Jerald Paul KING, Respondent.

No. 40413.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 25, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JANET E. MASCIANTONIO, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-797

:

Plaintiffs : (Chief Judge Conner)

:

v. :

:

SWEPI LP, :

:

Defendant :

ORDER & JUDGMENT

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2016, upon consideration of the crossmotions (Docs. 57, 60) for summary judgment by plaintiffs Janet E. Masciantonio 

and Martin J. Masciantonio, individually, and Paul R. Latshaw and Paul B. 

Latshaw, in their capacities as co-trustees of the Phyllis E. Latshaw Residuary 

Trust Created Under the Will of Phyllis E. Latshaw, and defendant SWEPI LP 

(“SWEPI”), respectively, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying 

memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. SWEPI’s motion (Doc. 60) for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 57) for summary judgment is GRANTED.

3. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of plaintiffs and against SWEPI in the 

amount of $4,144,000.00, with interest, as follows:

a. $2,072,000.00 to be paid to plaintiffs Janet E. Masciantonio and 

Martin J. Masciantonio; and

b. $2,072,000.00 to be paid to plaintiffs Paul R. Latshaw and Paul 

B. Latshaw, in their capacities as co-trustees of the Phyllis E. 

Latshaw Residuary Trust Created Under the Will of Phyllis E. 

Latshaw.

Case 4:13-cv-00797-CCC Document 81 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 2
4. Plaintiffs’ alternative count for fraudulent inducement is DISMISSED.

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER 

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Case 4:13-cv-00797-CCC Document 81 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.23
[LETTERHEAD OF                                        [Logo for SouthTrust Bank]
SOUTHTRUST BANK]


May 8, 2001

Mr. Morris E. Van Asperen
CFO
Color Imaging, Inc.
4350 Peachtree Industrial Blvd.
Suite 100
Norcross, Georgia 30071


RE:       Loan and Security Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") dated as of May 5,
          2000, as amended, among SouthTrustBank ("Lender") and collectively as
          "Borrower", Color Image, Inc., Color Imaging, Inc., Logical Imaging
          Solutions, Inc. and Alorex Corp.

Dear Van:

Please refer to the above referenced Loan Agreement. All capitalized terms used
herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Loan Agreement.

Borrower has requested Lender to waive the right to exercise Lenders remedies
under the Loan Documents in regard to Borrower's violation of certain financial
covenants contained in Article VI of the Loan Agreement for the quarter ended
March 31, 2001.

Lender, subject to the terms of this letter, agrees to waive the right to
exercise its remedies solely for the following covenant defaults (collectively,
the "Specified Defaults") occurring as of March 31, 2001:

1.   Breach of Financial Covenant to maintain a minimum Fixed Charge Ratio of
     1.20:1; and

2.   Breach of Financial Covenant to maintain a maximum ratio of Funded Debt to
     EBITDA of not more than 4.0:1; and

3.   Breach of Financial Covenant to maintain a minimum Tangible Net Worth of
     $4,100,000; and

4.   Breach of Financial Covenant to maintain a maximum Debt to Tangible Net
     Worth of 3.50:1.0.

<PAGE>

Color Imaging, Inc.
Financial Covenant Waiver
May 8, 2001

Except to the extent set forth herein, the Loan Agreement together with all
other documents remain in full force and effect without amendment or waiver.
Further, this waiver constitutes a waiver of the specific violations and dates
listed herein and does not constitute a waiver of any future violations of the
Loan Agreement. The bank retains its rights and remedies under the loan
documents with respect to any future defaults.


/s/ William H. Kilburg
----------------------
William H. Kilburg
Group Vice President
#### Cyril S. GLAUM v. Marilyn F. GLAUM.

No. 38938.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 224 So.2d 390.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                                 FTD CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, 1998 AND 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                    1999        1998       1997
                                                                                  --------    --------    --------
                                                                              (In thousands except per share amounts)
<S>                                                                             <C>         <C>         <C>
BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
-------------------------------------

Net earnings (loss) available for common stockholders before extraordinary item   $    779    $  1,098    $ (1,733)

Extraordinary item                                                                  (3,714)       (835)       --
                                                                                  --------    --------    --------

Net income (loss) available for common stockholders                               $ (2,935)   $    263    $ (1,733)
                                                                                  ========    ========    ========

Average number of common shares outstanding                                         15,355      15,208      15,371

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect
of stock options and warrants                                                         --           150        --
                                                                                  --------    --------    --------

Total average number of common shares outstanding                                   15,355      15,358      15,371
                                                                                  --------    --------    --------

Earnings (loss) per share before extraordinary item                               $   0.05    $   0.07    $  (0.11)


Extraordinary item                                                                   (0.24)      (0.05)       --
                                                                                  --------    --------    --------

Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share*                                      $  (0.19)   $   0.02    $  (0.11)
                                                                                  ========    ========    ========

</TABLE>

* Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share is shown as one amount in 1998 due
to the immaterial effect of dilutive common stock equivalents in the calculation
of diluted earnings (loss) per share.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   CERTIFICATION OF CUSTODIAN
   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gaofeng Gold, Corp. , a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Khanh C. Tran, President/ director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:
  (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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   Dated: December 15, 2004
   /s/Khanh C. Tran
   Khanh C. Tran
   President/ director
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7348

GREGORY MAURICE LEE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-316-3-MU) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Maurice Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent Appellant alleges due process violations regarding his administrative hearing and that he was improperly denied parole, these claims also fail. See Sandin v. Connor , __ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 4601, 4604-05 (U.S. June 19, 1995) (No. 93- 1911) (noting with approval the procedural due process principles outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 557, 564-66 (1974)); Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Neb. Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) ("There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence."). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. * Lee v. Attorney General of North Carolina , No. CA-97-316-3-MU (W.D.N.C. July 22, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank Joseph MARTIN, Jr.

No. 61468.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1978.

In re: Frank Joseph Martin, Jr. applying for supervisory writs. Terrebonne Parish.

Denied.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10(a)
  
    Consent of Williams & Connolly, LLP    
  



        We hereby consent to the following: (1) the filing of our legal opinion as Appendix E to the Registration Statement being drafted by your law firm
in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the above-referenced Merger Agreement; and (2) references to the name of our law firm as counsel to Illini and Merger Sub in the
Registration Statement and Proxy being drafted by your law firm in connection with such proposed merger. 


Very
truly yours, 



/s/
Williams & Connolly LLP 


WILLIAMS &
CONNOLLY LLP 


Date:
February 4, 2002 









QuickLinks


Exhibit 10(a) Consent of Williams & Connolly, LLP
EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report  dated April 2, 2004,  accompanying  the  consolidated
financial  statements  and  schedule  included  in the Annual  Report of Tarrant
Apparel  Group and  subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the year ended  December  31,
2003. We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration  Statements  of  Tarrant  Apparel  Group  on  Form  S-8  (File  No.
333-106151,  effective June 16, 2003,  File No.  333-106152,  effective June 16,
2003,  File No.  333-106153,  effective June 16, 2003,  and File No.  333-49810,
effective  November  13, 2000) and on Form S-3 (File No.  333-110090,  effective
November 6, 2003 and File No. 333-111092, effective December 23, 2003).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 2, 2004
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 4.1

                             ARTICLES SUPPLEMENTARY

        Sara Lee Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the "Corporation"), hereby
certifies to the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of Maryland, that:

        FIRST: Under a power contained in Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the Maryland
General Corporation Law (the "MGCL"), the Corporation, by resolutions of its
Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") duly adopted at a meeting duly
called and held on April 27, 2000, elected to become subject to Section 3-804(a)
and (c) of the MGCL.

        SECOND: The resolutions described above provide that, notwithstanding
any other provision in the charter of the Corporation (the "Charter") or the
Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Corporation (the "Bylaws") to the contrary,
the Corporation elects to be subject to Section 3-804(a) and (c) of the MGCL,
the repeal of which may be effected only by the means authorized by Section
3-802(b)(3) of the MGCL.

        THIRD: These Articles Supplementary have been approved by the Board of
Directors in the manner and by the vote required by law.

        FOURTH: The undersigned Senior Vice President of the Corporation
acknowledges these Articles Supplementary to be the corporate act of the
Corporation and, as to all matters or facts required to be verified under oath,
the undersigned Senior Vice President acknowledges that, to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief, these matters and facts are true in all
material respects and that this statement is made under the penalties of
perjury.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused these Articles
Supplementary to be executed under seal in its name and on its behalf by its
Senior Vice President and attested by its Assistant Secretary on this 28/th/ day
of April, 2000.

SARA LEE CORPORATION

ATTEST                                          (SEAL)


 /s/ R. Henry Kleeman                               /s/ Roderick A. Palmore
----------------------------------                 -------------------------
R. Henry Kleeman                                Roderick A. Palmore
Vice President, Deputy General Counsel          Senior Vice President - General
and Assistant Secretary                         Counsel and Secretary

                                       39
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

v. ) Criminal Action No. 04-36 Erie

)

MAURICE FRANCIS FOLEY )

)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2005, upon consideration of the Defendant,

Maurice Francis Foley’s Motion for the Return of Seized Property [Doc. No. 207], and the

Government’s Response thereto [Doc. No. 213], 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. The record reflects that the

Defendant perfected an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on

August 5, 2005, thereby divesting this Court of jurisdiction. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer

Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (citations omitted); Sheet Metal Workers’ International

Assoc. Local 19 v. Herre Bros., Inc., 198 F.3d 391, 394 (3rd Cir. 1999). 

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cc: All parties of record

Case 1:04-cr-00036-DSC Document 214 Filed 12/23/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Report of Kyzen Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Forsythe,
Chief Accounting 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)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 30, 2004                               /s/ Thomas M. Forsythe
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Thomas M. Forsythe
                                                      Chief Accounting Officer
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT I, Robert Klein, President and Chief Executive
Officer of 2Uonline.com, Inc, a Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003(the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

 Dated: May 20, 2003

/s/ Robert Klein
-------------------
Robert Klein
President and Chief Executive Officer