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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

TRISTAN CARL PABLO-RIVERA, a.k.a.

Tristan C. Pablo,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71880

Agency No. A040-497-052

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Tristan Carl Pablo-Rivera, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction

FILED

JUL 05 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71880

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Ngaeth v. Mukasey,

545 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly determined that Pablo-Rivera’s convictions under

California Penal Code § 459 are aggravated felony attempted theft offenses where

the record of conviction establishes that Pablo-Rivera pled guilty on both occasions

to entering a locked vehicle with the intent to commit theft. See id. at 802 (“[A]

conviction for entering a locked vehicle with the intent to commit theft constitutes

an attempted theft offense for purposes of the aggravated felony definition.”); see

also Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2011)

(using an abstract of judgment in combination with a charging document to

establish removability). In light of this determination, the BIA correctly concluded

that Pablo-Rivera is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and is

statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).

Contrary to Pablo-Rivera’s contentions, the IJ did not shift the burden of

proof to him, and the agency did not rely on his hearing testimony in concluding

that his convictions constitute removable offenses.

We do not entertain Pablo-Rivera’s Motion to Reopen and Vacate Removal,

filed on June 29, 2012. Any request for reopening should be filed with the BIA.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Transaction Summary

The U.S. Department of the Treasury agreed to make a loan totaling $45 million to Sun Country, 

Inc. (the Company), a wholly owned subsidiary of Sun Country Holdings, Inc. The Company is

a passenger air carrier with approximately 1,630 U.S. employees in March 2020.

Treasury made the loan pursuant to section 4003(b)(1) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security (CARES) Act. The loan is secured by the Company’s Sun Country Rewards

loyalty program. The loan has an annual interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 3.5% and matures on 

October 24, 2025. Treasury funded the full loan amount at close. The loan proceeds will be used 

to provide liquidity to continue the Company’s operations. The transaction agreement includes 

covenants by the Company to comply with certain restrictions on employee compensation, stock 

repurchases, dividends, and reductions in employment levels, as required by the CARES Act. 

The loan constitutes senior indebtedness of the Company, and Treasury will also receive 3% 

payment-in-kind annual interest on the loan in accordance with section 4003(d) of the CARES 

Act.
Exhibit 32.2







                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Laboratories, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
Sinicropi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
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 results of operations of the Company.














 /S/ JOSEPH SINICROPI
 --------------------
Joseph Sinicropi
Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2006
CASE NO. 06

- 15 -00129- CR

JAMES CUNNINGHAM § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

V. § SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS § AT TEXARKANA

STATE’ S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE STATE ’ S BRIEF

COMES NOW, the State of Texas, by and through its Assistant District

Attorney, Susannah E. Prucka, and files this Motion for Extension of Time to File

State ’ s Brief. Pursuant to Rule 10.5(b), Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure, the

State would show in support of her action that:

1. The case is styled The State of Texas v. James Cunningham , cause no. 14-043 42

- CRF

- 85 , out of the 85 th District Court, Brazos County, Texas.

2. Notice of Appeal was filed on or about July 9, 2015

3. The clerk’s record was filed on or about August 7, 2015. The reporter’s record was filed on or about August 21, 201 5.

4. Appellant ’ s most recent brief was filed on May 31, 2016.

5. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6(b) and 4.1(a)

, the State ’ s Brief i s currently due on or before June 30 , 2016.

6. The length of time requested is until July 21, 2016.

7. This is the State ’ s first request for an extension. ACCEPTED 06-15-00129-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 6/29/2016 2:31:21 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK8. The State requests this 21

- day extension due to the undersigned attorney’s current workload

. WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests that this Court grant the

for egoing motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ 

## Susannah E. Prucka
Susannah E. Prucka Assistant District Attorney Brazos County, Texas 300 East 26th Street, Suite 310 Bryan, Texas 77803 (979) 361

- 4320 Sta te Bar No

. 24076105 sprucka @brazoscountytx.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on this the 29 th day of June , 2016, a true and correct
copy o f the above and foregoing State’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File State’s Brief was emailed to Richard E. Wetzel

, Attorney for Appellant, at wetzel_law@1411west.com

. /s/ 

## Susannah E. Prucka
Susannah E. Prucka Assistant District Attorney
#### Bernard MALPHUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2047.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 18, 1977.

LeRoy H. Merkle, Jr., Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but we remand the case to the trial court for the correction of appellant’s sentence. The present sentence does not specify the amount of credit for time served which appellant is to receive as Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), requires. *Brooks v. State,*349 So. 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Appellant need not be present for resentencing.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.31

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

NEENAH PAPER SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN

(As amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2009)

 

WHEREAS, Neenah Paper, Inc. (“Company”) maintains the Neenah Paper Supplemental Pension Plan (“Plan”);

 

WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 6.2 thereof;

 

WHEREAS, effective as provided below, the Company desires to amend the Plan to update the definition of “Spouse” so the definition is consistent with the definition in the Neenah Paper Pension Plan; and

 

NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of September 16, 2013, the Company hereby amends the Plan by deleting Section 2.24 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

 

“2.24                  Spouse.  The Employee’s spouse pursuant to a legal marriage according to the laws of the State or other jurisdiction in which such marriage occurred.”

 

Except as specifically set forth above, the terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this First Amendment.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer on the 3rd day of March, 2014.

 

	
 
    	
NEENAH PAPER, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Richard Read
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Richard   Read
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
VP   - Human Resources
    


 

NP SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN — FIRST AMENDMENT

 

1
**Exhibit 32.1**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONI, E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of CrownCrafts, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending January 1, 2006 (the“Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: February 15, 2006                                                    /s/ E. Randall Chestnut   E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board,   President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32241]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-3-32-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 4, 1997.
    Take notice that, on December 1, 1997, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 11A reflecting an 
increase in its fuel reimbursement percentage for Lost, Unaccounted-For 
and Other Fuel Gas from 0.69% to 0.73% effective January 1, 1998.
    CIG states that copies of this filing have been served on CIG's 
jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Sections 385.214 and 385.211). 
All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 
154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32241 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Cascade Microtech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Sipowicz, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Steven Sipowicz    
|Steven Sipowicz        
|Chief Financial Officer
|Cascade Microtech, Inc.
|March 10, 2009         

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any
other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cascade Microtech, Inc. and will be retained by Cascade Microtech, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

__________________________________________

)

In the Matter of )

)

LIBBEY INC, a corporation, )

) Docket No. 9301

and )

)

NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INC., a corporation. )

__________________________________________)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Matthew R. VanderGoot, hereby certify that on May 31, 2002 a copy of Libbey 

Inc.’s amended Notices of Appearance was via hand delivery on the following:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell (two copies)

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 104

Washington, D.C. 20580

Richard Liebeskind, Assistant Director

Mergers II Division, Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

William S. D’Amico

Chadbourne and Parke

1200 New Hampshire Ave, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

/S/ Matthew R. VanderGoot
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert Thompson DRAKE, Sr., Appellee.

No. S-125.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 17, 1973.

*74Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Robert P. Miller, Public Defender, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Felony Court of Record for Volusia County, Florida, entered its order dismissing an information against the appellee, in which order the trial court, inter alia, made this finding:

> “3. That the conviction of this defendant in this Court under Section 790.23 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was the result of plea bargaining between said defendant and the State of Florida in which the State of Florida agreed not to prosecute other pending charges arising from the same criminal transaction and that, therefore, it would be grossly unfair and unconsciousable by the defendant’s sentence thereunder to be enhanced by virtue of this proceeding.”

This finding by the trial court, which was the same court before which the guilty plea had been entered pursuant to a plea bargaining, was found after the taking of testimony of the Assistant State Attorney and the Public Defender, the two attorneys involved. We think the trial court was correct in dismissing the information based on the findings cited supra.

We do not think we need to concern ourselves at this time about the validity or invalidity of the other two points in the court’s finding’s because we think that ground 3 supra, is determinative of this decision.

Order affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. at December 31, 1997, and its statement of
income for the year then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-K of CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,250,388
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  204,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                   108,316
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      15,660,881
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,497,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,096,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,147,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,096,421
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,692,490
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  471,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                21,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,937,632
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,937,632
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,937,632
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature  of its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund  IX,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION and Continental Oil Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Deluse MIRE et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 3071.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 30, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1970.

Edwards, Edwards & Broadhurst, by Nolan J. Edwards, Crowley, Chappuis & Beslin, by Denald L. Beslin, Rayne, for defendants-appellants.

Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe, by John G. Torian, II, and Lawrence E. Donohoe, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Donald Aaron, Crowley, for defendant-appellee.

Before TATE, SAVOY and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this concursus proceeding to determine the ownership of certain mineral royalty interests, the principal question concerns whether certain prescriptive pleas prevent the Group 2 heirs from attacking a partition sale from their ancestors in title. Group 1 and Group 3 rely upon these prescriptive pleas as preventing the current attack upon their partition sale of 1897.

Although the trial court discussed these prescriptive pleas, we cannot find same filed in the record. By letter counsel have informed us that there was an agreement of counsel that the litigation could be decided upon the prescriptive questions without the necessity of filing additional pleadings; however, we do not locate any stipulation to this effect in the record before us.

Exercising our authority to correct deficient records, LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2132, and our discretion to prevent a miscarriage of justice through pleading inadvertence, LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2164, we hereby remand this appeal, for purposes of permitting the parties to supplement the record by appropriate showing as to the circumstances of the submission of the litigation on the pleas of prescription, including permission for the parties to file such formal pleas in accordance with any agreement of the parties that the issues thereby presented were to be decided by the court even without benefit of formal plea.

*365Accordingly, the case is remanded, with instructions that the record as supplemented be returned to this court within thirty days of finality of this decree, for the decision to be submitted and decided by this panel without further docketing or oral argument.

Remanded.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.
U.S. flag
          Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
            Así es como usted puede verificarlo
          Así es como usted puede verificarloDot gov**El .gov significa que es oficial.**
                
                Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
          Https**Este sitio es seguro.**
                
                El **https://** medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.

    
          FTC: Translation Menu
  

        
EnglishFTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas **
Menú


    close


                  FTC: Main navigation (ES)
  

        
  
  Consejos para consumidores
      
    Guía para negocios
      
    Reembolsos
      
    Noticias
      
    Acerca de la FTC
      
    Buscar
        
        
        FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas

          
  
          Consejos para consumidores
      
    
              Guía para negocios
      
    
              Reembolsos
      
    
              Noticias
      
    
              Acerca de la FTC
      
    
              Buscar Public Statements Tagged with Health Claims No results found for this tag.
  
    
    
    

  Return to top **
Menú
FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        


      Reporte las estafas
                              Reciba alertas
  
  
      FTC: Footer (es)
  

        


      Política de privacidad y noticias
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20

- 0523

________________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF

C.A.Y and K.E.Y.

Youth s in need of Care.

__________________________________________________ ___________

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefore, Appellant is granted an extension of time

until February 08 , 20 20 to prepare, serve, and file his Opening Brief. No

additional extensions will be granted for the opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 4 2021

01/04/2021
255 La. 161

#### ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. v. Margaret F. SMITH, wife of/and Bachman Smith and United States Casualty Company.

No. 50299.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Margaret Smith and United States Casualty Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 228 So. 2d 85.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.