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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

FAUSTINO GONZALES,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10237

D.C. No. 2:07

- cr

- 00248

- WBS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Faustino Gonzales appeals from the distri ct court’s order denying his motion

for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court assumed that

Gonzales was statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction due to Amendment 782

to the Guidelines

, but concluded that a reduction was not war ranted under the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 10237

circumstances

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We r eview

discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see

United States v. Chaney , 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) , and we affirm

.

Gonzales first contends that the court abused its discretion by relying on a

2012

- 2013 prison disciplinary record to find that he posed a danger to public

safety

. The district court was permitted to consider such post

- sentencing conduct

when ruling on Gonzalez’s motion, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B), and

Gonzalez has not demonstrated that the district court’s factual findings or

inferences drawn from those recor ds were clearly erroneous, see United States v.

Mercado

- Moreno , 86 9 F.3d 942, 953 (9th Cir. 2017).

Gonzales also argues that the court failed to (1) consider all the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (2) address explicitly Gonzales’s argument t hat

he did not pose a risk to public safety

. It is apparent from the court’s statements

and the record as a whole that the court properly considered the section 3553(a)

factors, as well as Gonzales’s arguments

, in rendering its decision

. The court was

no t required to provide a more detailed explanation of its reasoning

. See Chavez

Meza v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1959, 196 6 (2018) (“ [T] he judge need not

provide a lengthy explanation if the context and the record make clear that the

judge had a reasoned basis for [ its decision ]” ) (internal quotation marks omitted)

.

AFFIRMED.
KPMG LLP

600 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West

Suite 1500

Tour KPMG

Montréal (Québec)  H3A 0A3
Telephone      (514) 840-2100

Fax                 (514) 840-2187

Internet          www.kpmg.ca
  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
  
 The Board of Directors
 Alderon Iron Ore Corp.
  We consent to the use of our report, dated March 27, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Alderon Iron Ore Corp., which comprise the consolidated statements of financial position as at December 31, 2013 and 2012, the consolidated statements of changes in equity, comprehensive loss and cash flows for the years then ended, and notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information, included in this annual report on Form 40-F of Alderon Iron Ore Corp.
   
 
 March 28, 2014
 Montréal, Canada
 
  
 
    
  *CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy permit No. A120220


KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG
 network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
 (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.  KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 32.2



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  annual report on Form 10-K/A of Latitude
Solutions, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Matthew J. Cohen, Chief
Financial  Officer,  Principal  Accounting  Officer  and  Director  of  Latitude
Solutions,  Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to my  knowledge,
that:

     a)   such annual report on Form 10-K/A of Latitude Solutions,  Inc. for the
          year ended December 31, 2010,  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 such  annual  report on Form 10-K/A of
          Latitude Solutions,  Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010, fairly
          presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and
          results of operations of Latitude Solutions, Inc.


Date:  May 18, 2011

                             /s/ Matthew J. Cohen
                             -----------------------------------------------
                             Matthew J. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer
                             and Director
                             (Principal Accounting Officer)




This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Charles MORAN and Betty J. Moran, his wife, Appellants, v. A. E. GREENE, Jr., and H. F. Wulf, Appellees.

No. 73-594.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 17, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERICK MANUEL MEJIA

- ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71071 Agency No. A088

- 639

- 197

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 7, 2019 ** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Erick Manual Mejia

- Alvarado , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Mejia

Alvarado’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying Mejia

Alvarado’s application for asylum , withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71071

§ 1252(a)(1), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition. We review de novo questions of law

. Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). The record does not compel the conclusion that Mejia

- Alvarado establish ed changed or extraordinary circumstances t o excuse his untimely asylum application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)

- (5 )

. We lack jurisdiction to consider Mejia

- Alvarado’s claimed social group of his family, because he did not raise that social group before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not pr esented to the agency) . Mejia

- Alvarado does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish he did or will experience persecution on account of political opinion or his proposed social group of “people of some means that were being ta rgeted by gangs or guerrillas that the government was unable to control that were using money to extort and kill

. ” See Martinez

Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived)

. Thus, Mejia

- Alvarado’s withholding of removal claim fail s
. Mejia

- Alvarado also does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
so that issue is similarly waived. Id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29984]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Astronomical Sciences (1186); Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces that the 
Special Emphasis Panel in Astronomical Sciences (1186) will be holding 
panel meetings for the purpose of reviewing proposals submitted to the 
Stellar Astronomy and Astrophysics Program in the area of Astronomical 
Sciences. In order to review the large volume of proposals, panel 
meetings will be held on December 4 and 5, 1997, (2) and December 9 and 
10, 1997 (3). All meetings will be closed to the public and will be 
held at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, Virginia, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day.

    Contact Person: Dr. Eileen Friel, Program Director, Stellar 
Astronomy and Astrophysics, Division of Astronomical Sciences, 
National Science Foundation, Room 1045, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-1825.
    Reason For Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-29984 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
### **Exhibit 31.2**

### ** **

### **CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I,MICHAEL J. SHEA, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of COMPUTER HORIZONS CORP.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)  disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a)  all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:                    | November 14, 2003 |   |
|--------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| /s/  Michael J. Shea     |                   |
| MICHAEL  J. SHEA         |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
|                          |                        |        |  |

 

----
#### Nancy J. SACHNOWITZ, as natural tutrix of Nancy Katherine Nelson, Annie Schreiner Nelson and Strauder Goff Nelson, III v. Carolyn Moffitt Henderson NELSON and Fidelity National Bank of Baton Rouge.

No. 62343.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Fidelity National Bank of Baton Rouge, Trustee applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 357 So.2d 894.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
**Exhibit 99.9**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Sprott Asset Management LP, Manager of Sprott Physical Gold Trust

 

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:

 

·                       our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 23, 2017 addressed to the unitholders of Sprott Physical Gold Trust (the “Trust”), on the financial statements of the Trust comprising the statement of financial position of the Trust as at December 31, 2016, the statements of comprehensive income (loss), changes in equity and cash flows for the year then ended, and notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information; and

 

·                       our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 23, 2017 on the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016,

 

each of which is contained in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

 

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-211508 on Form F-10 of Sprott Physical Gold Trust.

 

 
|                                                                   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                              |   |
| Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed   Public Accountants |
| March 23, 2017                                                    |   |
| Toronto, Canada                                                   |   |

 

----
#### Marilyn K. VANCE, Appellant, v. James F. VANCE, Appellee.

No. 72-590.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1973.

*6Rosemary Barkett, and Robert L. Say-lor, of Farish & Farish, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Arnold F. Kurzinger, of Kurzinger & Honchell, Boca Raton, for appellee.

WALDEN, Judge.

Responding to the divorced husband’s petition for an order adjudging the divorced wife to be in contempt for denying the husband’s child visitation rights provided in the amended judgment, the trial court entered the appealed order which modified the final judgment by eliminating the husband’s obligation to pay alimony and child support until such time as the wife allowed visitation. We reverse. Alimony can not be eliminated as a punishment for the denial of child visitation privileges. Hardy v. Hardy, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 106.

As concerns the elimination of child support payments, we note that the adjudication was neither an emergency matter nor was the welfare of the minor child in balance. Longo v. Longo, Fla. App.1971, 245 So.2d 658. Thus the modification being not encompassed by the pleadings or otherwise raised by the litigants must be reversed upon authority of Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 334. See also Scheer v. Scheer, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 456. Our opinion here is to be interpreted as being without prejudice to the rights of the parties to institute and maintain the usual contempt proceedings or to seek specific modification of the judgment as provided by Section 61.14, F.S.1971, F.S.A., as they are advised. See Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.App.1958, 108 So.2d 63; Annot. 95 A.L.R.2d 118 (1964).

Reversed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Congoleum Corporation
                     Computation of Income Per Common Share
                (Amounts in thousands, except earnings per share)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                                                                 March 31,
Basic Earnings Per Common  Share:                                                       1998                   1997
---------------------------------                                                  ---------------       ---------------

<S>                                                                                    <C>                  <C>      
Income per common and common equivalent share                                          $   427              $   1,013
                                                                                       =======              =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                               9,038                  9,997
                                                                                       -------              ---------

Weighted average common shares                                                           9,038                  9,997
                                                                                       =======              =========

Income per common share                                                                $  0.05              $    0.10
                                                                                       =======              =========

Diluted Earnings Per Common Share

Income per common and common equivalent share                                          $   427              $   1,013
                                                                                       =======              =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                               9,038                  9,997

Effect of assumed exercise of dilutive stock options (1)                                     1                     38
                                                                                       -------              ---------

Weighted average common and common equivalent shares                                     9,039                 10,035
                                                                                       =======              =========

Income per common and common equivalent share                                          $  0.05              $    0.10
                                                                                       =======              =========
</TABLE>

(1) Computed based on the treasury stock method.


                                       16
254 La. 834

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Major WILLIAMS and Howard Jackson.

No. 50194.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 7, 1969.

In re: Major Williams and Howard Jackson applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31608]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence 
will meet in closed session on December 17-18, 1997 at Headquarters, 
Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, Omaha, Nebraska.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will address the U.S. ability to deter and prevent the effective 
use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. territory, forces, and 
allies.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c) (1) (1994), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: November 26, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-31608 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31745]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 18, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand, Vice 
President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, P.O. Box 291, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Betty Lou Johnson Trust, Betty Lou Johnson, Trustee, Winthrop, 
Minnesota; and Mark L. Johnson, Dassel, Minnesota to acquire voting 
shares of Winthrop Bancshares, Inc., Winthrop, Minnesota, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Winthrop State Bank, Winthrop, Minnesota.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    2. Fred C. and Kellie P. Harlan, Okmulgee, Oklahoma; to acquire 
voting shares of First Okmulgee Corporation, Okmulgee, Oklahoma, and 
thereby indirectly acquire First National Bank & Trust Company, 
Okmulgee, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 28, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31745 Filed 12-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F