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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ROSA MARIA MORALES LEMUS and

JENNEFER MARIA MARTINEZ

MORALES,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 09-70088

 09-72760

Agency Nos. A029-274-266

 A029-274-267

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

In these consolidated petitions for review, Rosa Maria Morales Lemus and

Jennefer Maria Martinez Morales, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion

FILED

MAR 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72760

to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, and order denying their

motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely because it was filed more than eight years after the September

11, 1998, deadline for motions to reopen for the purpose of filing an application for

special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central

American Relief Act of 1997, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1), and petitioners failed

to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is available

where “petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as

long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). 

Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’

motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (“A motion to reconsider shall

state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior

Board decision . . . .”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Cummins Parameters

65 mph 55 mph Tran

James Calculations W trk - tire W trk - drag W trk - total W trk - tire W trk - drag W trk - total W trk W braking Brk/Traction Work

2b-5 1.034 7.728 8.763 0.875 4.682 5.557 2.346 -1.080 0.461

class 6-7 1.626 7.728 9.354 1.376 4.682 6.058 3.304 -1.797 0.544

class 8 4.332 8.415 12.747 3.665 5.098 8.763 7.789 -5.100 0.655

65 mph 55 mph Tran

GEM W trk - tire W trk - drag W trk - total W trk - tire W trk - drag W trk - total W trk W braking Brk/Traction Work

2b-5 1.031 7.658 8.689 0.874 4.661 5.535 2.837 -1.446 0.510

class 6-7 1.623 7.685 9.307 1.374 4.667 6.041 3.952 -2.244 0.568

class 8 4.327 8.388 12.715 3.663 5.088 8.750 8.561 -5.294 0.618

65 mph 55 mph Tran

Cummins Calculations W trk - tire W trk - drag W trk - total W trk - tire W trk - drag W trk - total W trk W braking Brk/Traction Work

Class 2b-5 8.762 5.556 2.470 -0.967 0.391

Class 6-7 9.353 6.056 3.488 -1.606 0.460

Class 8 12.743 8.760 8.242 -4.555 0.553
#### Braddock Township Appeal.

*311Argued May 7, 1942.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.

*I. Edward Roth,*with him *Leo Kostman,*for appellant.

*Thomas F: Garrahan,*with him *H. Wr. McIntosh,*of *McIntosh <& Garrahan,*for appellees.

July 23, 1942:

Per Curiam,

*312This appeal by the Township of Braddock is from an order of the court below detaching a portion of the territory of that township and annexing the same to the Borough of Edgewood, a contiguous borough in the County of Allegheny. The proceedings were under the Act of June 19, 1939, P. L. 430, 53 PS §19092-312.1 et seq.

Appellant contends that the order should be reversed, the petition dismissed, and judgment entered in favor of appellant for two reasons. The first is that the Act of 1939 is unconstitutional in that it violates the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and article 1, §9, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and that the act is local and special legislation of a type repugnant to article 3, §7, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. The same argument was presented in the *Appeal of Braddock Township,*148 Pa. Superior Ct. 52, 24 A. 2d 705 (allocatur refused). We there held that the Act of 1939 was not unconstitutional on the grounds here assigned.

Appellant’s second contention is that it was error to have filed the petition at the same number and term as discontinued proceedings. It seems that annexation proceedings were begun by petition filed in the court below at No. 17, December Sessions, 1940, and subsequently, because of a jurisdictional defect, were discontinued “without prejudice to the rights of said petitioners, or others with them, to institute and proceed with a new proceeding for the annexation of the said property to the said borough.” A new petition was presented and ordered to be filed. In the office of. the clerk of the courts the new petition was given the same number and term as the first petition upon which proceedings were ordered discontinued without prejudice; and the proceedings were then carried on to final determination. At most this was a docket error, and no rights of the parties were affected. We do not find that *313any objection was made because the new petition was filed at No. 17, December Sessions, 1940, until the matters in controversy were heard on the merits, and even then there was no specific objection by appellant. At the argument before this court counsel for appellant conceded that appellant had not been prejudiced by this clerical error. Such a mistake is clearly within the control of the court wherein it occurs. *First National Banh of Clarion v. Brenneman’s Executors,*114 Pa. 315, 320, 7 A. 910.

The assignments of error are overruled.

The order is affirmed, at the cost of appellants.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 369 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 369

 Relative to the death of Representative Bruce F. Vento, of Minnesota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 10 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

   Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Grams, Mr. 
Durbin, and Mr. Feingold) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Relative to the death of Representative Bruce F. Vento, of Minnesota.

    Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow and deep 
regret the announcement of the death of the Honorable Bruce F. Vento, 
late a Representative from the State of Minnesota.
    Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these resolutions to the 
House of Representatives and transmit an enrolled copy thereof to the 
family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns or recesses today, it stand 
adjourned or recessed as a further mark of respect to the memory of the 
deceased Representative.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification**

I, James A. Peers,certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GFI Group Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: August 14, 2006 |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| /s/ JAMES A. PEERS         |   |
| James A. Peers             |
| Chief Financial  Officer   |

 

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 05, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 05, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19A2401. RUSSELL GAITHER v. MARTY ALLEN et al.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On August 05, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than August 15, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
* 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. 99-51185 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TONY EDWARD POWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CR-4-1

- - - - - - - - - - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tony Edward Powell, federal prisoner #61525-080, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Powell has failed to demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. His motion for IFP is therefore DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Powell’s motion to amend or supplement his appeal brief is DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification

I,
Michael Gooch, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GFI Group Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
August 8, 2008

|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/MICHAEL GOOCHMichael Gooch Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
* 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. 07-51373 Conference Calendar

ADAN CHAVEZ Petitioner-Appellant

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CV-706
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Adan Chavez, federal prisoner # 51181-079, appeals from the denial ofhis 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his sentence following his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court determined that Chavez’s claims would be properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that Chavez could not proceed under § 2255’s savings clause. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 21, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51373

2 Chavez asserts that he is “actually innocent” of the sentence he received because the trial court calculated the drug quantity and imposed a role enhancement by using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, that the court wrongly denied him a minor-role reduction and imposed the supervisory enhancement, and that he should have been sentenced to no more than 20years in prison based on the relevant quantity of cocaine. He maintains that he was unable to raise his claims in his initial § 2255 motion because he was denied an opportunity to respond to the Government’s answer in that proceedi ng. The district court did not err in concluding that Chavez’s claims were not properly raised under § 2241. SeeTolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). To the extent that Chavez’s underlying arguments can be read as arising under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), he may not proceed under the savings clause of § 2255. S ee Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005); Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX , 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002). Chavez alsoargues that he is entitled to reliefunder Amendments 706 and 709 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which he asserts were not available to him earlier. We will not consider Chavez’s claims, raised for the first time before this court. See Leverettev. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**We have issued our report dated May 5, 2008,with respect to the financial statements of Tricadia CDO Fund, L.P, included as an exhibit to the Annual Report of NYMAGIC,INC. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference of said report in the Registration Statements ofNYMAGIC, INC. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-106547, effectiveNovember 3, 2003) and onForms S-8 (File No. 33-88342, effective January 9, 1995,333-103018, effective February 6, 2003, and 333-116091, effectiveJune 2, 2004).     /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP   New York, NYMay 5, 2008
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 Creative Beauty Supply of
New Jersey Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months
ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carmine Catizone,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

/s/Carmine Catizone
-----------------------------
Carmine Catizone
Chief Executive Officer

August 12, 2008


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 Creative Beauty Supply of
New Jersey Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months
ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Generelli,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

/s/Daniel Generelli
-----------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Chief Financial Officer

August 12, 2008
t^f^^^FH u - Montana Department of Transportation Vmoihy w. Reardon. Director 

/-^-/.o.. ;. .•.-v^..^ '-.iXSPQRWION 

March 8, 2012 •:;:': i'OPERATiOMS 

Mr. Dennis DeVany ^VJ. iiAR H P U: 21 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: DOT-OST-2003-14626 - Yellowstone Airport Carrier Selection 2012 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) is pleased to offer the following 

comments relative to the selection of an Essential Air Service (EAS) air carrier at the 

Yellowstone Airport (WYS) for the 2012 season (June - September). 

As you know, WYS is located in West Yellowstone, Montana and MDT is encouraged to see 

competition in this market, thus fostering healthy promotion of services from all interested 

air carriers and ultimately resulting in better service for the community. 

Sky West Airlines has provided this region for many years with excellent service, qualified 

staff and supportive local interaction related to the air carrier needs of West Yellowstone. 

Furthermore we commend Silver Airways for providing a high quality EAS route proposal 

for review. 

Considering all factors, MDT supports the recommendation of the Town of West 

Yellowstone in continuing with Sky West for the 2012 season and MDT looks forward to a 

proposal from Sky West for the 2013 season with new CRJ 200 Jet service. 

MDT is proud of our partnership with the Town of West Yellowstone and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation and we thank you for considering our comments as you choose 

an EAS carrier to service the community of West Yellowstone, Montana. 

Sincerely, 

Tim Reai^don 

Director 

Cc: 

Debbie Aike. Administrator - MDT Aeronautics 

Sern Johnson, ^4a^ < )C - To'svn of West Yellowsione 

Di('?cfor'.^ C'fftce A.l Ej::' . O^^DOrlUi.li • •;•••; "•• WebFoge: '/wvv.(r:d/m(.cio\' 

^ )• •; It. . 

F,:,,: 14061 444-764i JTV: (800/335-75'."'..
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,080,630                 520,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,289,731               1,582,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,093                  29,093
<INVENTORY>                                    466,117                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,205,644               2,107,888
<PP&E>                                       4,176,663                 310,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                 327,600                  80,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,233,808               2,422,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,499,729               2,170,190
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           212                     160
<OTHER-SE>                                     500,003                      55
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,233,808               2,422,410
<SALES>                                     11,142,518               4,654,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,208,688               4,665,599
<CGS>                                        5,953,971               2,325,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,061,629               3,231,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,879,539               1,187,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                24,000                  53,564
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             127,507                   2,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,812,413                 162,922
<INCOME-TAX>                                   743,140                  60,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,013,209                 102,582
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04                     .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>