alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1997

PAULE NADEGE MBONJI EDING; ASTRID EDING, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-218-876; A95-225-199) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 2, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua A. Moses, JOSHUA MOSES & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sisters Paule Nadege Mbonji Eding and Astrid Eding, natives and citizens of Cameroon, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to reopen its previous order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the Edings’ motion. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Eding , No. A95-218-876; No. A95-225-199 (B.I.A. July 15, 2004). 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. PETITION DENIED
Minutes from Call with Tim Cassidy (Best Buy, formerly with Ault, a division of SL 

Power Electronics):

Date: 9/18/09 

Purpose: Discuss hypothesis for Product Price Determination 

Interviewers: Ari Reeves, Dan Lauf (D&R International, Ltd.) 

Summary 

• Manufacturers typically use a cost-plus pricing model, in which a percentage mark-up 

is added to the input and manufacturing costs of a product. 

• While retailers may sell some items at a loss, the loss will typically be offset by 

accessories and other high-margin goods. As such, it is safe to assume that any cost 

increase will be passed to consumers in some fashion (even if not directly through the 

price of the good in question). 

• The typical supply chain begins with the BCEPS manufacturers, moves to the OEMs, 

and ends with the retailers (at which point the good is available for sale to 

consumers). Distributors do not typically play a significant role. 

Detail 

Mr. Cassidy explained that there is typically a percentage markup at each step of the 

supply chain. Factory pricing is based on a cost-plus model, meaning costs include the 

Cost of Goods Sold (including material, labor, and overhead costs) and a multiplicative 

factor that accounts for inventory, engineering, other expenses, and company margin. 

Competition does play a factor and lead some manufacturers to pass costs directly to the 

next step in the supply chain (without any markup), however this is typically not viable in 

the longer term; manufacturers need to maintain margins (which are already thin for 

power supply manufacturers). The same holds true at each step (OEM, etc). 

For retailers, some items are sold at a loss, which then offsets other items sold at high 

margins. Mr. Cassidy agreed that it would be a fair assumption that markups average to a 

company’s listed margin. The challenge to DOE will probably be the availability of 

manufacturer margin data (since many manufacturers are overseas and therefore are not 

required to follow SEC reporting standards). Beyond this, BCEPS manufacturing and 

BCEPS application manufacturing represents a small portion of many manufacturers’ 

total activities (e.g., Sony and Emerson Power) and, thus the company’s overall margins 

are not indicative of the markups relevant to our analysis. Therefore, DOE’s best option 

is to find manufacturers focused on relevant products (such as Black & Decker). 

The typical route to market is: BCEPS Manufacturer ►OEM ►Retailer. There is 

sometimes an additional step in the distribution chain—often between BCEPS 

manufacturers and OEMs rather than between OEMs and retailers—but this likely makes 

no difference to the retail price. In fact, big distributors like Digikey, Allied, and Mouser 

have a lot of buying power and can drive prices down. Reasons for distributor use are: 

1. Product volumes that are too small to warrant direct negotiation between parties 

2. Experimenting with new product offerings (at low volumes) 

3. Buyer’s desire to eliminate or reduce inventory, which can be a financial liability
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: LAKE MATHEWS 

MINERAL PROPERTIES, LTD., 

Debtor.

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

PAUL MERRITT, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

ELISSA D. MILLER, Trustee, 

Appellee.

No. 21-55810 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-07808-GW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Paul Merritt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming 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

JAN 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 21-55810 

bankruptcy court’s order on final fee applications. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 158(d). “We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently 

without deference to the district court’s determinations.” Leichty v. Neary (In re 

Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Contrary to his contention, Merritt’s filing of two interlocutory appeals 

related to the bankruptcy court’s orders disallowing his proof of claim and denying 

his motion to dismiss did not deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to 

approve the final fee applications because Merritt’s pending appeals divested the

bankruptcy court of jurisdiction only over matters directly involved in those

appeals. See In re Castaic Partners II, LLC, 823 F.3d 966, 969 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2016)

(“[T]he filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction 

over matters or issues not appealed.”); Sherman v. SEC (In re Sherman), 491 F.3d 

948, 967 (9th Cir. 2007) (“If a party wants to stay all of the proceedings in 

bankruptcy court while an appeal is pending, it must file a motion for a stay.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
I, Michel Dumas, certify that: 

1) I have reviewed this annual  report on Form 40-F of Tembec Inc.; 
2) Based on my knowledge, this  annual 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 annual report; 
3) Based on my knowledge, the  financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual  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 annual report; 
4) The registrant's other  certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)  and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 
a) designed such    disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and    procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material    information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,    particularly during the period in which this annual report is being    prepared;

b) evaluated the    effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of    the end of the period covered by this annual report (the "Evaluation Date");

c) presented in this    annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;    and

d)disclosed in this annual    report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial    reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that    has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the    registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 
5) The registrant's other  certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation  of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and  audit committee of registrant's board of directors (and persons performing the  equivalent function); 
a) all significant    deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal    control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely    affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report    financial information; and 

b) any fraud, whether    or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a    significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial    reporting. 
Date: December 21, 2005 

/s/ Michel Dumas                                                                             Michel Dumas Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1805 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1805

        To suspend temporarily the duty on fenarimol technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 20, 2009

    Mr. Kyl introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on fenarimol technical.

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

SECTION 1. FENARIMOL TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       (RS)-2,4'-dichloro- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          a-(pyrimidin-5-                                                    31/2011.......
                          yl) benzhydryl
                          alcohol
                          (fenarimol
                          technical) (CAS
                          No. 60168-88-9)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2933.59.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted),James P. Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of JK Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:     1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, towhich this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and     2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     **In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of November 14, 2007.   /s/ James P. Wilson James P. Wilson  *Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary**(Principal Executive Officer)**(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)*This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.
17
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**AULTRA
      GOLD INC.**




**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 Aultra Gold Inc. (the Company) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rauno Perttu, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company **** and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.






November
                19,
                2007
            By:
            /s/ *Rauno
              Perttu*Rauno
                PerttuChief
                Financial Officer