alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31305 Summary Calendar

WISTING FIERRO RUIZ ET AL., Plaintiffs,
WISTING FIERRO RUIZ; JAIRO FERNANDO RIASCOS; Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus JANET RENO, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., Defendants, JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General; KEITH HALL, Warden; RITA A. STANLEY; R. KEVIN MCHUGH; NANCY A. HOOKS; U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, DIRECTOR; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-191

- - - - - - - - - - March 24, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wisting Fierro Ruiz (federal prisoner No. 59534-079) and Jairo Fernando Riascos (federal prisoner No. 05062-003) appealNo. 96-31305 -2- the dismissal of their complaint seeking monetary damages for alleged civil rights violations arising out of deportation proceedings initiated by the Attorney General. We affirm on the alternative basis that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review appellants’ claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
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 the quarterly report of IFSA Strongman, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jussi
Laurimaa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and 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 10th, 2006                 By:


                                        /s/ Jussi Laurimaa
                                        Jussi Laurimaa
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                       12
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REGINALD LAMAR WIDEMON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

Chief District Judge. (CR-95-75-3-V)

Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Lamar Widemon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Widemon, No. CR-95-75-3-V (W.D.N.C. Sept.

26, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
'•-IT T '"• ~ •"• ' ' ''^r-•'^.^T • 7ir> i t 

m W AIRLINE S 

April 10, 2010 

Dennis J. DeVany 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

US Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

SkyWest Airlines Essential Air Service Proposal for Crescent City, California 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Attached is the SkyWest Airlines proposal for continued service to Crescent City, 

California. Our proposal is to provide two direct round trips daily (14 round trips per 

week) to San Francisco with no intermediate stops or aircraft flow from other cities. 

Service will be provided with the Embraer Brasilia (EMB-120) 30-seat turboprop aircraft. 

The proposal period is for August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2012. 

These flights will be operated as United Express, pursuant to a code-sharing agreement 

with United Airlines, and will provide connections in San Francisco to the national 

transportation system. 

SkyWest has served Crescent City for many years, and welcomes the opportunity to 

continue to provide reliable service if selected. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

c 

r 

Eric Christensen 

Vice President Planning 

SkyWest Airlines 
SkyWest Airlines 

Essential Air Service Proposal 

Crescent City, California 

20-Apr-lO 

Non stop service to San Francisco (SFO) 

Service period - August 1, 2010 - July 31, 2012 

Cost drivers: 

Aircraft Type - Embraer Brasilia 

Aircraft passenger seats 

Number of round trips per week 

Annual passenger assumption 

Average fare assumption 

Block time minutes per segment 

Trip length - Statute miles 

Calculations: 

Annual departures at 98% completion 

Annual block time at 98% - Hours 

RPMs 

ASMS 

Load Factor 

Subsidy Requirement: 

Passenger Revenue 

Direct Operating Expenses 

Flight attendant 

RPM related 

Departure related 

ASM related 

Operating income (loss) 

5% profit margin 

Subsidy requirement 

Block Hr 

Block Hr 

RPMS 

Departures 

ASMS 

$1,153.19 

$34.49 

$0,013 

$408.46 

$0,039 

30 

14 

22,200 

$98.00 

92 

304 

1,427 

2,188 

6,748,800 

13,013,146 

52% 

$2,175,600 

$2,523,039 

$75,459 

$85,261 

$582,829 

$502,448 

$3,769,036 

($1,593,436) 

$188,452 

$1,781,888
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60511

Summary Calendar

MARIO CHO-AJANEL,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A078 282 784

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Cho-Ajanel petitions for review of the decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his 

motion to reopen his in absentia removal proceedings and dismissing his 

appeal. Cho-Ajanel raises two due process claims in his petition for review: (1) 

the IJ should have reopened the removal hearing because Cho-Ajanel did not 

receive notice thereof in his native language and (2) the BIA’s summary 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60511 Document: 00513256893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2015
No. 14-60511

2

affirmance of the IJ’s order, without opinion, deprives this court of a sufficient 

basis for reviewing the reasonableness of the BIA’s action.

This court has previously held that “sections 1229(a)(1) and (b)(1) do not 

require notice in the alien’s native language.” Ek Hong Djie v. Holder, 310 F. 

App’x 720, 721 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, as Cho-Ajanel correctly concedes,

his argument regarding the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures is 

foreclosed in this circuit. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th 

Cir. 2003) (holding that BIA’s summary affirmance procedures “do not deprive 

this court of a basis for judicial review and . . . do not violate due process”). 

Cho-Ajanel invites this court to revisit Ek Hong Djie and Soadjede, arguing

that those cases fail to appreciate the extent to which the claimed deprivations 

undermine aliens’ established due process rights to notice and judicial review.

We decline the invitation. See Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 

375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008).

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 14-60511 Document: 00513256893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2015
#### John Wayne BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-2123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 30, 1986.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John T. Kilcrease, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Candance M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to give proper credit for time served as a youthful offender. We agree.

The record is clear that defendant was entitled to credit in that regard. *See State v. Holmes,*360 So.2d 380 (Fla.1978), and *Sims v. State,*369 So.2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). He did not receive it.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRÁNK, JJ., concur.
#### The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert L. HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 82CA0766.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Oct. 18, 1984.

Thomas 0. David, Weld County Atty., R. Russell Anson, Asst. Weld County Atty., Greeley, for plaintiff-appellant.

Martin, Knapple, Humphrey & Tharp, Richard A. Tharp, Boulder, for defendant-appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

Plaintiff, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County (the Board), appeals the denial of its complaint for an injunction against Robert L. Hawkins. We affirm.

*1300Hawkins operates an exotic animal farm as a hobby in Weld County. The farm contains many species of exotic grazing animals as well as twelve carnivorous cats which are kept in cages. In 1978, the county planning department informed Hawkins he would need a special use permit in order to continue operating his exotic animal farm in the A-Agricultural zone. Because of Hawkins’ failure to apply for a special use permit, the Board sought a permanent injunction forcing Hawkins to remove his exotic animals from the property. Concluding that the Board had failed to prove a violation of the zoning code, the trial court denied the injunction.

The Board first contends that the trial court erred in failing to find a violation of the zoning code. We disagree.

To enjoin a zoning violation, the governing entity must prove both the ordinance and a violation thereof. *See City & County of Denver v. Chuck Ruwart Chevrolet, Inc.,*32 Colo.App. 191, 508 P.2d 789 (1973). Thus, the Board had the burden of proving that Hawkins’ use of his property violated the A-Agricultural zone. *See Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & County of Denver,*628 F.2d 1289 (10th Cir.1980), *cert. denied*452 U.S. 963, 101 S.Ct. 3114, 69 L.Ed.2d 975 (1981).

In the A-Agricultural zone, the Weld County Zoning Resolution allows, among other enumerated activities, farming, ranching, grazing, public parks, playgrounds and other public recreation areas. The resolution also states that in addition to the enumerated uses, “any other ... use which is similar to those enumerated and no more obnoxious or detrimental to the area in which it is located, shall be permitted.”

The trial court found, on supporting evidence, that Hawkins’ use was similar to and no more obnoxious than others enumerated for the A-Agricultural zone. Hence, no violation was shown and the injunction was properly denied. *Cf. City & County of Denver v. Chuck Ruwart Chevrolet, Inc., supra.*

The Board’s remaining contention lacks merit. It contends that Hawkins did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Since Hawkins’ use was allowed by right in the A-Agricultural zone, he was not required to exhaust any administrative remedies by seeking a special-use permit or by challenging the determination that a special-use permit was necessary. *See People v. Webster,*40 Colo.App. 144, 570 P.2d 560 (1977); *see also McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park,*163 Cal.App.2d 339, 329 P.2d 522 (1958).

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
# • RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 44 D Permit Modification STATE ANALOG IS: FEDERAL ANALOGOUS MORE BROADFEDERAL RCRA STATE EQUIV- STRIN- ER IN REQUIREMENT CITATION CITATION ALENT GENT SCOPE PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMITS
MAJOR MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE OF PERMITS statutory requirements 270.41(a)(3) 830(3)(a){iii) X modification by the director 270.41(a)(3)(i) withdrawn in 1988 X permittee request for modification 270.41(a)(3)(ii) withdrawn in 1988 X 

## t renumber old (3)(ii) as (3){iii) and revise 270.41(a)(3){iii) withdrawn in 1988 X 

# •

• December 1, 1987 - Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT 32.2
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Rotoblock
Corporation (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lance Waymen, Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, hereby certify,
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 my knowledge and
belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.



Date:  December 10, 2005         /s/ Thomas M. Howard
                              -----------------------------------------
                              By: Thomas M. Howard, Chief Financial
                              Officer and Principal Accounting Officer












<PAGE>
#### Cesar YEPES, Petitioner, v. Hon. David L. TOBIN, Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 88-2469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 17, 1988.

Irwin G. Lichter, Miami, for petitioner.

*1068Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Fariba N. Komeily, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with our decision in *Glos-son v. Solomon,*490 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), we hold that the trial judge’s announced policy of refusing to set bail in probation revocation proceedings, thereby refusing to exercise any discretion, violates section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1987). We direct the trial court to consider petitioner’s claim for release with or without bail pending final disposition of the probation violation charge.

MANDAMUS GRANTED.1

1

. We dispense with rehearing.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Saul WHITTAKER.

No. 86-KH-1107.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Whittaker, Saul; applying for remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. K 5613; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “M”, No. 277-835.

Granted. The trial court is ordered to furnish relator with a transcript of his guilty plea.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                        THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           THE NATIONAL REGISTRY INC.
                             A Delaware Corporation

The undersigned certify that:

1.   They are the President and Secretary, respectively, of The National
     Registry Inc., a Delaware corporation.

2.   ARTICLE FOUR of the Certificate of Incorporation is amended by deleting it
     in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

         "FOURTH: The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
         0Corporation shall have authority to issue is 26,000,000 shares,
         consisting of (i) 1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, $.01 par value
         per share (the "Preferred Stock"), and (ii) 25,000,000 shares of Common
         Stock, $.01 par value per share (the "Common Stock"). Upon amendment to
         this Article to read as herein set forth, each six (6) shares of
         outstanding Common Stock is converted into and reconstituted as one (1)
         share of Common Stock."

3.   The foregoing Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation has been duly
     approved by the Board of Directors.

4.   The foregoing Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation has been duly
     approved by the required vote of stockholders in accordance with Section
     242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The total number of
     outstanding shares of the Corporation is 39,174,124. The number of shares
     voting in favor of the Amendment equaled or exceeded the vote required. The
     percentage vote required was more than 50%.

Dated as of May 26, 1998
                                /s/ JEFFEREY P. ANTHONY
                                ------------------------------------
                                Jeffrey P. Anthony
                                President

                                /s/ DAVID E. BROGAN
                                ------------------------------------
                                David E. Brogan
                                Secretary
EXHIBIT 99.1
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rotoblock Corporation
(Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Peter Scholl, Chief Executive Officer of Registrant,
hereby certify, 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
my knowledge and belief:

   (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 Registrant.

Dated:  December 15, 2004       /s/ Peter Scholl
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer,
SERVED JUNE 22, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

S/P RESOURCES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10WP0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0319 

NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following 

procedural schedule: 

... On or before August 21, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to 

production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a 

discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution 

in a timely manner... 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on September 2,2010, inclusive, in the National Transportation Safety Board 

Courtroom, 1515 W. 190th ST. Ste 555, Gardena, CA 90248. Settled cases will not 

be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pleading(s). 

Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal service. 

—fS^" ^ 

Attachment - Service List 

KicEard 0/ Goodwir 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CP10WP0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

James Trato, President 

S/P Resources, Inc., Respondent 

P.O. Box 7481 

LagunaNiguel, CA 92607 

TEL: 949-600-7767 

FAX: 949-297-3967 

Christopher D. Nissen, Respondent's Counsel 

Manning & Marder, Kass, Elhod, Ramirez LLP 

15* Floor at 801 Tower 

801 South Figueroa Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

TEL: 213-624-6900 

FAX: 213-624-6999 

Courtney Adolph, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7.4 

Federal Aviation Admmistration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7128 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Wp.shington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.