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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

EZEQUIEL MIRAMONTES-ARTEAGA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73473

Agency No. A035-789-677

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Ezequiel Miramontes-Arteaga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

FILED

JUN 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73473

granting the government’s motion to rescind. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen

and de novo constitutional and legal issues. Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d

1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review. 

The agency correctly determined that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to entertain

Miramontes-Arteaga’s second motion to reopen because jurisdiction remained with

the BIA following the BIA’s order dismissing Miramontes-Arteaga’s prior appeal. 

See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a), 1003.23(b)(1). 

Because Miramontes-Arteaga’s 1998 deportation order was lawful when he

was deported, the BIA did not err in concluding that Miramontes-Arteaga failed to

demonstrate a “gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceeding.”

Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam); see also

Alavarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft, 271 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2001); AvilaSanchez, 509 F.3d at 1040-41. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in

denying Miaramontes-Arteaga’s motion to reopen. See Ahwazi v. INS, 751 F.2d

1120, 1122 (9th Cir. 1985) (we will uphold the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen

“unless it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

Miramontes-Arteaga’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,268,855
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,350,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 23,213,836
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     90,657,653
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,423,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             133,621,252
<DEPOSITS>                                 116,970,059
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,244,950
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,898,622
<LONG-TERM>                                     61,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,446,200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,782,625
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,217,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             133,621,252
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,693,454
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,337,832
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               238,394
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            11,269,680
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           5,096,494
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,123,208
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,146,472
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  915,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              11,627
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,407,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,008,930
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,219,083
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,219,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.39
<LOANS-NON>                                    559,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    76,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               882,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  406,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    33,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,424,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,424,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.2

Intelliwise Financial Engineering Advisory Corp. Ltd.

4thFloor, No. 152, Section.4, Nanjing E. Road

Taipei, Taiwan 105, R.O.C.

Tel: 886-2-2570-3938

Fax: 886-2-2570-5336

Date: July
11, 2014

We hereby consent to the use of the information contained in our reports, dated as of April 15, 2014, relating to valuation of the
warrants of China Metro-Rural Holdings Limited.



|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|/s/ Yea-Mow Chen, Chairman                                                  
|Yea-Mow Chen, Chairman
Intelliwise Financial Engineering Advisory Corp. Ltd.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Hilarion McTEAGUE et ux.

No. 8153.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 30, 1970.

Wm. W. Irwin, Jr., and Philip K. Jones, Dept, of Highways, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

L. B. Ponder, Jr., Amite, for appellees.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the devolutive appeal taken by the Department of Highways herein. Movers claim that the Department has failed to deposit in the registry of the Court the excess amount of the judgment below, and that under the provisions of R.S. 19:13, the excess must be deposited as a condition precedent to the taking of the appeal.

The Supreme Court held, in the case of State, Department of Highways v. Holmes, 251 La. 607, 205 So.2d 416 (1967), in which the same contention was made, that the making of the deposit was not essential to the validity of the appeal. The motion is without merit.

Motion to dismiss denied.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of dot com Entertainment Group, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Scott F. White, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the bestof my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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 financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |

/s/ Scott F. White

Scott F. WhiteChief Executive OfficerNovember 7, 2002
March 27, 2003 

 HSA-10/B116 

Ronald K. Faller, Ph.D., P.E. 

Research Assistant Professor 

Midwest Roadside Safety Facility 

P.O. Box 880601 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0601 

Dear Dr. Faller: 

In your letter dated October 24, 2002, you requested formal Federal Highway 

Administration acceptance of a Low Profile Bridge Rail tested to NCHRP Report 350 test 

level 2 (TL-2). Included with your letter were copies of the Midwest Roadside Safety 

Facility report dated August 20, 2002, entitled “Development of a Low-Profile Bridge 

Rail for Test Level 2 Applications”, a VHS video tape documenting the compliance test, 

and a CD-ROM containing digital photographs, film footage and system drawings. 

The tested rail was a 508-mm high reinforced concrete “curb” with a vertical back and a 

top width of 356 mm to a depth of 152 mm. This width was then transitioned back (on a 

1:1 slope) to a 279-mm thickness, which then remained constant to the bridge deck. 

These dimensions (and reinforcing details) are shown in the enclosure to this letter. 

NCHRP Report 350 test 2-11 was run, with a 2000-kg pickup truck impacting the rail at 

70 km/h and at an angle of 27.1 degrees. The vehicle was contained and redirected. 

Reported occupant impact velocity and ridedown accelerations were 6.6 m/s and 8.1 G’s, 

respectively, both values being less than the preferred maximums suggested in NCHRP 

Report 350 guidelines. The roll angle of the truck was 36 degrees. Test 2-10 with the 

820-kg car was deemed redundant based on previous tests with similar height barriers 

and I agree that that test can be waived in this instance. 

The bridge rail described above can be considered an NCHRP Report 350 test level 2 

(TL-2) design and used on the National Highway System at locations where anticipated 

impact speeds are in the 70-km/h range. 

Although you did not request acceptance of a terminal for the TL-2 bridge rail in your 

letter, your research report recommended the use of a sloped concrete end treatment 

similar to one which has been previously accepted at TL-2 based on a series of full-scale 

crash tests. While that earlier design was deemed acceptable, the acceptance letter (CC44, dated March 6, 1998) clearly stated that in several of the compliance tests, the 

impacting vehicles rode up onto the barrier proper or proceeded behind the terminal for 

distances exceeding 50 meters. While not desirable, these trajectories may be acceptable 

if the terrain behind the barrier is both clear of hazards (or workers) and is reasonably 

traversable. However, if a sloped terminal is installed immediately adjacent to a bridge, 

there is a good chance that an impacting vehicle may end up in or on whatever feature the 

structure crosses. Consequently, the sloped terminal should be used to introduce a bridge 

rail only when an appropriate length of barrier proper is installed along the roadway in 

advance of the structure itself. 
 Sincerely yours, 

 (original signed by Michael S. Griffith) 

 Michael S. Griffith 

 Acting Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety 

Enclosure
COASTAL
CARIBBEAN OILS & MINERALS, LTD.
 
 FORM
10-Q


EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd. (the "Company") on FORM 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip W. Ware, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.





Date:  August
      24, 2009
                By /s/ Phillip W. WarePhillip
      W. WarePrincipal
      Executive Officer,President
      and Principal Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd. and will be retained by Coastal
Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.4

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 Annual Report of County Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary R. Abramowicz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Gary R. Abramowicz  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Gary R. Abramowicz      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                    |   |
| March 28, 2016          |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to County Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by County Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|    |                                                                                                                                                 |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Towers Watson & Co. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015. |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. |

|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |
|                      |
| Date: October 2, 2015     |
|                      |
| /s/ Roger F. Millay  |
| Roger F. Millay           |
| Chief Financial Officer   |
No. 9886.

#### The Board of Education of Vaughnsville Special School District *v.*The State, ex rel. Griffiths.

(Decided October 16, 1906.)

Error, to Circuit Court of Putnam County.

*Messrs. Handy & Unverferth,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. B. L. Griffiths*and *Messrs. Bailey & Bailey,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed and original petition dismissed, the case depending upon the constitutional validity of a statute now repealed and costs only involved.

Shauck, C. J., Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
No. 9737.

#### Jacobs *v.*The State of Ohio, by etc. (Charles S. Willis, a taxpayer.)

(Decided November 27, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Jackson County.

*Mr. A. E. Jacobs*and *Mr. S. F. White,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Elmer C. Powell,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21.1
 Subsidiaries of the Registrant
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationAncestry.com Australia Pty Ltd
    
    AustraliaAncestry.com France SARL
    
    FranceAncestry.com Italia S.r.l.
    
    ItalyAncestry.com Operations Inc.
    
    Delaware, United StatesAncestry.com UK Limited
    
    United KingdomAncestry.com UK (Commerce) Limited
    
    United KingdomGenerations Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaInfoRich (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong KongTGN Services, LLC
    
    Delaware, United StatesAncestry.com Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyAncestry.com Canada Inc.
    
    Canada42010523 Canada Inc.
    
    CanadaRiverwoods Holding
    
    Cayman IslandsGenline AB
    
    SwedeniArchives, Inc.
    
    UtahAncestry.com Europe S.à r.l.
    
    LuxembourgAncestry.com DNA, LLC
    
    Delaware
#### State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Franz Schlottman, Apellant.

I. Practice, *criminal*— Criminal *prosecution*— Language, *loud and*abusive.— Disturbing the peace of a single individual by loud and abusive language, is not a criminal offense.

*Appeal from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.*

*T. G. C. Davis,*for Appellant.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a prosecution before a justice of the peace for disturbing the peace of the prosecutrix, which resulted in a verdict and judgment against the defendant from which he appealed to the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. In that court the defendant fried a motion to dismiss the case upon the alleged ground that the justice had no jurisdiction, and failing further to answer or appear the Court of Criminal Correction affirmed the judgment of the justice and rendered judgment against the defendant and his securities in the appeal bond from which the defendant has appealed to this court.

The following is the complaint upon which the *prosecution.*was founded:

> “State op Missouri . > County op St. Louis $ * Maty Cahill being duly sworn says that Frank Schlottman on or about the 12th day of July, 1872, at the County aforesaid, did willfully disturb the peace of this affiant by calling her a whore and that said affiant keeps a whore-house, in a loud and angry manner without any cause or provocation and against the *165peace and dignity of the State of Missouri, and that this affiant further saith that the said Frank Sclilottman, has not to her knowledge or belief been arrested, held to bail or otherwise dealt with for the said disturbance, and further saith not.

> Katy Cahill.”

Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 12th day of July, 1872. . Philip Doherty,

Justice of the Peace

There was no evidence taken'before the Court of Criminal Correction and no trial, the judgment of the justice was affirmed as it stood on the papers and transcript, we must therefore assume that the affidavit above set forth contains the offense for which the defendant was convicted.

There is neither assault,battery or affray charged in this complaint nor any other legal offense. The conduct of the defendant in using the language he did and in the manner indicated, was very immoral and reprehensible. It was not however such an offense as is denounced by the law as criminal and which would under our statute subject the offender to a criminal prosecution. He no doubt would be liable to a civil action for slander but I know of no statute rendering such conduct criminal. There is a statute against disturbing the peace of families or neighborhoods but none against disturbing the peace of a single individual by the use merely of loud and abusive language.

Under this view the judgment must be reversed and the prosecution dismissed.

The other Judges concur.
December 20, 2010

lames J. Duffy

Ally Financial Inc.

Chief Human Resources Officer

11 77 Avenue ofthe Americas

New York, NY 10036

leffrey 1. Hurd, Esq.

Senior Vice PresidentHuman Resources and Communications

American International Group, Inc.

180 Maiden Lane

22nd Floor

New York, NY 10038-4925

Ms. lanice Uhlig

Executive Director, Global Compensation and Planning

General Motors Company

300 Renaissance Drive

Detroit, MI 48265-3000

Re: Supplemental Determination Regarding

Compensation and Structures

Dear Mr. Duffy, Mr. Hurd and Ms. Uhlig:

Pursuant to the Department ofthe Treasury's Interim Final Rule on TARP Standards for

Compensation and Corporate Governance (the "Rule"), on April 16, 2010, the Special Master

issued determination letters to each ofAlly, AIG and GM (the "April 2010 Determination

Letters") with respect to compensation structures for certain executive officers and most highly

compensated employees ("Covered Employees 26 100"). 31 C.F.R. § 30.16(a)(3)(ii).

Annex A to each ofthe April 2010 Determination Letters includes a paragraph entitled

"Employees entering the 'Top 25"', which describes certain terms and conditions applicable with

respect to 2010 compensation where the relevant company reasonably concludes that a Covered

Employee may become one ofthe "Top 25" employees in 2011. The paragraph does not,

however, refer to 2009 compensation with respect to such a Covered Employee. The principles

underlying the matters discussed in the specified paragraph apply equally to the comparable

elements of 2009 compensation. Accordingly, the Special Master has determined that the second