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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MATEO SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ, AKA

Mateo Martinez-Sanchez,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 14-72432

Agency No. A078-259-408

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2017** 

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Mateo Sanchez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for

FILED

JUL 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir.

2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not err in concluding that a waiver of inadmissibility under

section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(h), is not available to waive the effect of the conviction that rendered

Sanchez-Martinez ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Guerrero-Roque v.

Lynch, 845 F.3d 940, 942 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e hold that the waiver authority

provided in INA § 212(h) does not nullify a conviction that disqualifies an alien

from cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b).”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez-Martinez’ unexhausted contentions

that the IJ abused his discretion or denied due process by not granting a further

continuance. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court

lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative

proceedings before the agency).

We deny Sanchez-Martinez’ motion for judicial notice and to supplement

the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 11) and grant Respondent’s motion to

strike exhibits from Sanchez-Martinez’ opening brief (Docket Entry No. 13). See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (“[A] court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the

2 14-72432
administrative record on which the order of removal is based[.]”); Fisher v. INS, 79

F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record

through a motion to reopen with the agency). 

We deny Sanchez-Martinez’ request for attorney’s fees as moot. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 14-72432
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3281

_____________________________

PRESTON PAMPHILE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

December 31, 2018

PER CURIAM.

This timely sworn petition seeks belated appeal of a 

September 18, 2017, order declaring Petitioner competent to 

proceed nunc pro tunc to the time of trial. We dismiss the 

petition because of a jurisdictional issue. 

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty and judgments 

and sentences were rendered on December 2, 2014, in Leon 

County Circuit Court case number 2014-CF-1428. In 2016, 

Petitioner filed a petition alleging ineffective assistance of 

appellate counsel raising four grounds. The petition was granted 

in part, the judgments and sentences were reversed, and the 

cause was remanded for further proceedings on the question of 

establishing Petitioner’s competency at the time of trial. See
2

Pamphile v. State, 216 So. 3d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). On 

remand, the circuit court issued a nunc pro tunc order on the 

competency issue, but did not re-enter the judgments and 

sentences. An order on competency is not independently 

reviewable under rule 9.140(b), Florida Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Because no appealable order has been rendered by the 

circuit court, the petition for belated appeal is dismissed. 

LEWIS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Preston Pamphile, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Samuel B. Steinberg and 

Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee,

for Respondent.
EXHIBIT 32








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nano Labs Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Bernardo Camacho Chavarria, the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 the Company.






May 14, 2013
By:
/s/ Bernardo Camacho ChavarriaBernardo Camacho Chavarria,Principal Executive, Financial andAccounting Officer
Exhibit 23

LOGO

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Cooperative Bankshares, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-92219, 333-22335, and 333-101442) on Forms S-8 of Cooperative Bankshares, Inc. of
our reports dated April 30, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cooperative Bankshares, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in
Cooperative Bankshares, Inc.s 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our report on the consolidated financial statements contains an explanatory paragraph
relating to the existence of substantial doubt about the Companys ability to continue as a going concern. Our report on the consolidated financial statements also refers to the Companys adoption of the provisions of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value Measurement, Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 109, Written Loan Commitments Recorded at Fair Value Through Earnings, and Emerging Issues Task Force Issue 06-4,
Accounting for Deferred Compensation and Postretirement Benefit Aspects of Endorsement Split-Dollar Life Insurance Arrangements.

Our report on
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, expresses our opinion that Cooperative Bankshares, Inc. and Subsidiary (the Company) did not maintain effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2008, because of the effect of material weaknesses on the achievement of objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that outlines material weaknesses in certain of the Companys
credit administration, underwriting, processing and monitoring controls as well as certain reconciliation and review procedures specific to the determination of the allowance for loan losses. These material weaknesses were considered in determining
the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the 2008 consolidated financial statements, and did not affect our report dated April 30, 2009 on those consolidated financial statements.

LOGO

Greenville, North Carolina

April 30, 2009
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲ ▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/24

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■

■ ■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★

●

●

●

●
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                                                     [Letterhead]
                                            Deloitte & Touche LLP
                                            Two Prudential Plaza
                                            180 North Stetson Avenue
                                            Chicago, Illinois  60601


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
-----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-
69601, 333-39012, and 333-68355 of John Deere Capital Corporation on Form S-3 of
our report dated November 21, 2000, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of John Deere Capital Corporation for the year ended October 31, 2000, and to
the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectuses, which are
part of such Registration Statements.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Chicago, Illinois

January 15, 2001
**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 Annual Report of U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) that he is the Chief Financial Officer of the Company and 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/ Ray M. Harlin                                

Ray M. Harlin

Executive Vice President of Finance

and Chief Financial Officer

 

Date:  March 10, 2006
254 La. 796

#### Miss Felonies BRIGGS v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY.

No. 50039.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 224 So. 2d 124.

The application is denied. According to the facts as found to be by the Court of Appeal, the judgment complained of is correct.
# PIOC
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3564

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to make homeowners

who are at least 50 years of age and disabled or blind eligible for

home equity conversion mortgages insured under such section.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Mr. LIPINSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to make

homeowners who are at least 50 years of age and disabled or blind eligible for home equity conversion mortgages insured under such section.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disabled and Blind

5 Homeowners Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

7 Section 255(b) of the National Housing Act (12

8 U.S.C. 1715z–20(b)) is amended—
2

•HR 3564 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘terms ‘elderly

2 homeowner’ and ‘homeowner’ mean’’ and inserting

3 ‘‘term ‘elderly homeowner’ means’’; and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new

5 paragraph:

6 ‘‘(4) The term ‘homeowner’ means an elderly

7 homeowner or an older disabled or blind homeowner.

8 ‘‘(5) The term ‘older disabled or blind home9 owner’ means any homeowner who is, or whose

10 spouse is—

11 ‘‘(A) at least 50 years of age; and

12 ‘‘(B) determined by the Secretary to be

13 disabled or blind under the meanings given such

14 terms pursuant to section 1614 of the Social

15 Security Act, and in making such a determina16 tion for an individual the Secretary shall con17 sider any previous determination of the Sec18 retary of Health and Human Services that the

19 individual is or is not disabled or blind for pur20 poses of such section.’’.

21 SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

22 Section 225(d)(2)(A) of the National Housing Act

23 (12 U.S.C. 1715z–20(d)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting

24 ‘‘or an older disabled or blind homeowner’’ before the

25 semicolon at the end.
3

•HR 3564 IH

1 SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

2 Section 225 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.

3 1715z–20(a)) is amended—

4 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘and older

5 disabled or blind homeowners’’ after ‘‘homeowners’’

6 each place it appears; and

7 (2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ‘‘and older

8 disabled or blind homeowners’’ after ‘‘homeowners’’.

Æ
#### Joan K. PERITZ, Appellant, v. TIDELANDS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-1081.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 4, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 this Quarterly Report of Amwest Imaging Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick Moore, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





By:   /s/ Patrick Moore


Patrick Moore


Chief Executive Officer, President,


Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial


Officer, Secretary, and Director





Dated: July 19, 2011
SCPW-23-0000056 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

CAMERON NICE and MARTHA NICE, Petitioners, 

vs. 

THE HONORABLE RANDAL VALENCIANO, 

Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit, 

State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

(5CCV-22-0000027) 

ORDER 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

 Upon consideration of the March 8, 2023 submission 

from Cameron and Martha Nice, and the record in this matter, we 

conclude the submission is, in part, a second motion for 

reconsideration of this court’s February 10, 2023 order, which 

denied their original petition for a writ of mandamus, and is, 

in part, a series of motions for fresh relief, including (1) for 

interlocutory review of a February 23, 2023 hearing in the 

underlying litigation; (2) an order from this court removing 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-23-0000056

17-MAR-2023

08:04 AM

Dkt. 24 ORD
2 

Judge Valenciano from the underlying litigation and/or requiring 

his recusal; (3) an order directing Judge Valenciano to vacate 

his January 26, 2023 order, which granted withdrawal of the law 

firm which previously had represented the Nices; (4) an order 

directing Judge Valenciano to reschedule a number of hearings to 

accommodate the Nices; (5) an order directing the former firm to 

renew its representation and/or refund monies to the Nices which 

were previously paid; (6) an order directing the Disciplinary 

Board of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court and the Office of Disciplinary 

Counsel to expedite any investigations of the Nices’ allegations 

of misconduct against a number of attorneys involved in the 

underlying litigation; and (7) the provision of free legal 

representation and/or consultation. We further conclude that 

either the requested relief is prohibited by court rule, see 

Rule 40(e) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure, or the 

Nices, in their additional requests for relief, fail to 

establish a clear and indisputable right to relief or that they 

lack other means to adequately redress the alleged wrong, or 

both. See Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi, 81 Hawaiʻi 410, 

414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996); In re Disciplinary Bd. of 

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, 91 Hawaiʻi 363, 368-69, 984 P.2d 688, 693-

94 (1999); Breiner v. Sunderland, 112 Hawaiʻi 60, 68, 143 P.3d 

1262, 1270 (2006). Therefore, 
3

It is ordered that the motions are denied in their 

entirety.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 17, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 2295** 
MELVIN C. BOMAR , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; DEBORAH MOORE

- CARTER, Labor Commissioner; MARGARET B. MARTIN, Department of General Services Division Chief III; KHALIL ZAIED, Director, Department of General Services; REGINIA GRANDE

- BROWN, Department of General Services, Personnel Director; DR. KEITH LEE, Mercy Medical Clinic; DR. AMY ESPY

- SMITH, Mercy Medical Clinic; LISA CONIC, Mercy Medical Clinic , Defendants

- Appellees
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00507

- RDB )

Submitted : February 16, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part , dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion
. Melvin C. Bomar, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl Simpson Parker, Assistant City Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland; Steven G. Metzger, GALLA GHER EVELIUS & JONES, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Melvin C. Bomar appeals the district court ’ s order dis missing his discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civi l Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Labor Commissioner Deborah Moore

- Carter, Margaret B. Martin, Khalil Zaied, and Regin ia Grande

- Brown of the Department of General Services, as well as Doctors Keith Lee and Amy Espy

- S mith, and Lisa Conic of the Mercy Medical Clinic. T he district court dismissed with prejudice Bomar’s claims under the ADA for failure to state a cause of ac tion. The district court further dismissed with prejudice Bomar’s claims under Title VII, except those claims against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error as to the district court’s dismissal o f these claims with prejudice. W e affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Bomar v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No. 1:11

- cv 00507

- RDB (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2011). This c ourt may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006) and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because the district court dismissed Bomar’s Title VII claims against the Mayor and City of Baltimore without3 prejudice , the district court’s dismissa l of Bomar’s case is interlocutory and not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
#### Howard E. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-195.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 9, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, John Lipinski and Roy Wood, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Steven V. Rosin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and SAM SPECTOR, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of Russell v. State, Fla.App.1972, 266 So.2d 92.
Date: Sept 2, 2014 Meetin g : Methane Emissions Rule(s) Discussed: Written Materials? Yes/No: Nam e O r ga ni z a t ion Phon e N urn b e r



# ~ **c......----- --**  **1** ----l-----1
<PAGE>

                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE - EXHIBIT 11.1
               (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

BASIC INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:

                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED               SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                     JUNE 30,                         JUNE 30,
                                           --------------------------       ---------------------------
                                              2000           1999               2000           1999
                                           -----------    -----------       -----------     -----------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>               <C>             <C>
Net income (loss)                          $    (7,542)   $       910       $    (9,584)    $    (2,403)
                                           ===========    ===========       ===========     ===========

Weighted average shares
outstanding                                 22,480,071     22,480,071        22,480,071      22,479,755
                                           ===========    ===========       ===========     ===========

Income (loss) per common share             $     (0.34)   $      0.04       $     (0.43)    $     (0.11)
                                           ===========    ===========       ===========     ===========
</TABLE>

DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED               SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                     JUNE 30,                         JUNE 30,
                                           --------------------------       ---------------------------
                                              2000           1999               2000           1999
                                           -----------    -----------       -----------     -----------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>               <C>             <C>
Net income (loss)                          $    (7,542)   $       910       $    (9,584)    $    (2,403)
                                           ===========    ===========       ===========     ===========

Weighted average shares
outstanding                                 22,480,071     22,480,071        22,480,071      22,479,755

Effect of dilutive shares-stock
options                                              -         19,417                 -               -
                                           -----------    -----------       -----------     -----------

Total weighted average dilutive
shares                                      22,480,071     22,499,488        22,480,071      22,479,755
                                           ===========    ===========       ===========     ===========

Income (loss) per common share             $     (0.34)   $      0.04       $     (0.43)    $     (0.11)
                                           ===========    ===========       ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
#### Philip Loyyd GREGORY, a/k/a Philip Arthur Parent, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 17, 1967.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Russell E. Seay, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.