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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ROGELIO CONCHAS-FERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73855

Agency No. A092-294-084

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Rogelio Conchas-Fernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

accept an untimely brief. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s rejection of an untimely brief, Zetino v.

FILED

JAN 06 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73855

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review. 

The BIA was within its discretion in declining to accept ConchasFernandez’s untimely brief. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1013 (concluding the

applicable regulations indicate the BIA “could have considered” the brief, but it

was under no obligation to do so, and the BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally,

or contrary to the law in denying it). Conchas-Fernandez’s contentions that the

BIA did not adequately explain its reason for declining to accept the untimely brief

or address his ineffective assistance of counsel claim are belied by the record. Cf.

Garcia-Gomez v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 1050, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007).

We lack jurisdiction to review Conchas-Fernandez’s contentions regarding

eligibility for a 212(c) waiver and voluntary departure because he failed to raise

these issues before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M I CH A EL RI CH A RD STEA RN S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30201 D . C . N o . 3 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 1 1 2 - T MB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka T i m othyM . B ur ge s s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a y15, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , G R A B E R , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i c ha e l R i c ha r d S t e a rns appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on a nd 57- m onth s e nt e nc e f

orbe i ng af

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) a nd 924( a ) ( 2) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, 

# FI LED MA Y21 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 30201 2 a nd w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. S t earns c on t ends thathi s gui l ty pl eaw as i nv ol un t ary and thatthe di stri ct c ourtdi d notc om pl yw i th F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 11 be f or e a c c e pt i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea . H e s ee ks t o w i thd raw hi s gui l ty pl eabase d o n the al l eged d e f ic ie n c ie s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a c q u ie s c e s in S te a rn s ’s r e q u e s t f o rr e lie f . W e v a c a te S te a rn s ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e , a n d r e m a n dto th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith i nstruct i on s t o al l ow S t earns t o w i thd raw hi s gui l ty pl eaand for further p r o c e e d in g s . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.
EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-62733 and 333-50910) and on Forms S-3 (File Nos.
 333-65536, 333-74172 and 333-96939) of LifePoint, Inc. and in the related
Prospectus of our report dated June 27, 2003 (except Note 9, as to which the
date is July 14, 2003), with respect to the financial statements of LifePoint,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31,
2003.


                      			ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Orange County, California
July 14, 2003
**Exhibit21**
| Subsidiaries of Registrant                                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
| The following  subsidiaries are direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Company: |
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
| Affinity Advertising, LP, a Minnesota limited partnership                       |
| Affinity  Brokerage, Inc., a Delaware corporation                               |
| Affinity Guest  Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation                          |
| Affinity Road  and Travel Club, Inc., a Texas corporation                       |
| AGI Productions,  Inc., a Delaware corporation                                  |
| ARU, Inc., a  Minnesota corporation                                             |
| Camp Coast to  Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation                              |
| Camping Realty,  Inc., a Kentucky corporation                                   |
| Camping World,  Inc., a Kentucky corporation                                    |
| Camping World  Insurance Services of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada corporation         |
| Camping World  Insurance Services of Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation           |
| Coast Marketing  Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation                            |
| CWFR Capital  Corp., a Delaware corporation                                     |
| CWI, Inc., a  Kentucky corporation                                              |
| CW Michigan,  Inc., a Delaware corporation                                      |
| Ehlert  Publishing Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation                         |
| Golf Card  International Corp., a Delaware corporation                          |
| Golf Card Resort  Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation                        |
| GSS Enterprises,  Inc., a Delaware corporation                                  |
| Power Sports Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation                                |
| TL Enterprises,  Inc., a Delaware corporation                                   |
| VBI Inc., a  Delaware corporation                                               |

 

1

----
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Coca-Cola FEMSA, S.A.B d e C.V. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                               
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2013 |  | /s/ Carlos Salazar Lomelín                    
|                     |  | Carlos Salazar Lomelín
Chief Executive Officer



|                     |  |                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2013 |  | /s/ Héctor Treviño Gutiérrez                    
|                     |  | Héctor Treviño Gutiérrez Chief Financial Officer



Exh. 13.1-1
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 12

                 SHEFFIELD STEEL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                         (In thousands, except ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Years Ended April 30,
                                             --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1995           1996           1997           1998          1999
                                             --------       --------       --------       --------       --------
<S>                                          <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
 Interest on long-term debt                  $ 10,127       $ 11,758       $ 11,769       $ 12,300       $ 14,599
 Amortization of debt issue costs                 474            476            368            383            456
                                             --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

      Total fixed charges                    $ 10,601       $ 12,234       $ 12,137       $ 12,683       $ 15,055
                                             ========       ========       ========       ========       ========

Earnings, as defined:
 Income (loss) before income taxes
  and extraordinary item                     $  2,022       $ (3,091)      $ (3,509)      $  1,302       $  1,496

 Fixed charges (as shown above)                10,601         12,234         12,137         12,683         15,055
                                             --------       --------       --------       --------       --------

      Earnings available for fixed charges   $ 12,623       $  9,143       $  8,628       $ 13,985       $ 16,551
                                             ========       ========       ========       ========       ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges              1.19x           .75x           .71x          1.10x          1.10x
                                             ========       ========       ========       ========       ========
</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A2218. PAUL ROWE v. NOVIN CONSTRUCTION, LLC.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling, Paul Rowe appealed to the superior court. On March 18, 2016, the

superior court entered an order granting Novin Construction, LLC’s motion for rent

pending appeal and directing Rowe to pay monthly rent into the court registry “until

the issue of possession of the [p]roperty is finally decided.” Rowe has filed a direct

appeal to this Court from that order.1 We, however, lack jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, because the case remains pending in the superior court, the order Rowe

seeks to appeal is a non-final order which did not resolve all issues in the case. He

therefore was required to follow the procedures for interlocutory review as set forth

in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213)

(1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408

SE2d 103) (1991); Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga. App. 427, 427 (481 SE2d 3) (1997).

Second, “appeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of

lower courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for

discretionary appeal.” Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333)

(2003) (punctuation omitted); see also OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). Where both

discretionary and interlocutory application procedures apply, the applicant must

1

In his notice of appeal, Rowe references the superior court’s order entered on

March 16, 2016. However, there is no superior court order dated March 16, 2016 in

the record. The hearing on the motion for payment of rent pending appeal was held

on March 16, 2016, which appears to explain Rowe’s reference to that date.

August 17, 2016
followthe interlocutory appeal procedure and obtain a timely certificate of immediate

review before filing an application. See Scruggs, 261 Ga. at 588-589 (1).

Rowe’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedures deprives us of

jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

08/17/2016
# Holmes - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association Executive Director Dr. Vicki King-Maple Email &#x76;m&#x61;&#112;l&#x65;&#64;&#x6f;&#x6d;e&#x67;&#97;d&#x69;&#115;&#x74;&#114;i&#x63;&#116;&#46;&#x6f;&#114;&#x67;The post Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of President and Chief Operating Officer



Pursuant to



Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report) of MCG Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Steven F. Tunney, the President and Chief Operating Officer of the
Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    STEVEN F. TUNNEYName: Steven F. TunneyDate: November 4, 2004
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

LEONARD SCHMALLIE, JR., Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0606 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-006448-001

The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Leonard Schmallie, Jr., Tucson

Petitioner Pro Per
STATE v. SCHMALLIE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Leonard Schmallie, Jr., petitions for review of the summary 

dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the 

petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.

¶2 Following a jury trial, Schmallie was convicted of four counts 

of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence 

of intoxicating liquor or drugs. He was sentenced to concurrent ten-year 

prison terms. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal 

with an increase in the credit for presentence incarceration. State v. 

Schmallie, 1 CA-CR 12-0205, 2013 WL 4080746, at *1, ¶ 6 (Ariz. App. Aug.

13, 2013) (mem. decision). 

¶3 Schmallie commenced a timely post-conviction relief

proceeding. After appointed counsel filed a notice that he was unable to 

find a colorable claim to raise, Schmallie filed a pro per petition for postconviction relief alleging a variety of claims. The superior court summarily 

dismissed the petition, finding that a number of the claims were 

procedurally precluded and the remainder failed to state a colorable claim 

for relief. This petition for review followed.

¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a post-conviction relief 

proceeding for an abuse of discretion. State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 464, 466, 

¶ 6, 250 P.3d 241, 243 (App. 2011) (citing State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, 

¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006)). Schmallie has failed to show in his petition for 

review that the superior court abused its discretion in ruling that his claims 

were either precluded or failed to state a colorable claim for relief. Thus, 

there was no error in the summary dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6(c).
STATE v. SCHMALLIE

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASON ANDREW SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JOHAL; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15252 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01662-LJO-MJS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges.

Jason Andrew Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various 

constitutional violations in connection with his shoulder injury. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 

 

* 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

JUN 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-15252 

F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. 

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s deliberate indifference claims 

against defendants Johal, Zepp, and Klang because Smith failed to allege facts 

sufficient to show that these defendants were deliberately indifferent to Smith’s 

shoulder injury and pain. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 

2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; a difference of medical 

opinion concerning the course of treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice 

does not amount to deliberate indifference). 

However, dismissal of Smith’s deliberate indifference claim against 

defendant Youssef was premature because Smith’s allegations regarding the delay 

in his physical therapy, liberally construed, are “sufficient to warrant ordering [this 

defendant] to file an answer.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1116. We vacate the dismissal 

of Smith’s deliberate indifference claim regarding the delay in his physical therapy 

as to defendant Youssef, and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
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 on Form 10-Q of Blast Energy Services, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael L. Peterson, Interim President and CEO and Principal 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, as amended; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Michael L. PetersonMichael L. PetersonInterim President and CEO(Principal Executive Officer)
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4910 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide outer burial receptacles 

for remains buried in National Parks, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2018 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia (for himself and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide outer 

burial receptacles for remains buried in National Parks, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Cemetery 

5 Benefit Correction Act’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4910 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF OUTER BURIAL RECEPTACLES FOR 

2 REMAINS BURIED IN NATIONAL PARKS. 

3 Section 2306(e) of title 38, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

6 (A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ before ‘‘The Sec7 retary of Veterans’’; 

8 (B) in subparagraph (A), as designated by 

9 subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, by striking 

10 ‘‘The Secretary of the Army’’ and inserting the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘(B) The Secretary of the Army’’; and 

13 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

14 subparagraph: 

15 ‘‘(C) The Secretary of the Interior shall provide an 

16 outer burial receptacle for each such a grave in an open 

17 cemetery under the control of the National Park Service.’’; 

18 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

19 (A) by striking ‘‘or in the Arlington Na20 tional Cemetery’’ and inserting ‘‘, in the Arling21 ton National Cemetery, or in a cemetery under 

22 the control of the National Park Service’’; and 

23 (B) by striking ‘‘or Secretary of the Army’’ 

24 and inserting ‘‘, the Secretary of the Army, or 

25 the Secretary of the Interior’’; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4910 IH

1 (3) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘or, 

2 with respect to Arlington National Cemetery, the 

3 Secretary of the Army’’ and inserting ‘‘or the Sec4 retary of the Army with respect to Arlington Na5 tional Cemetery or the Secretary of the Interior with 

6 respect to a cemetery under the control of the Na7 tional Park Service’’; and 

8 (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘or, with re9 spect to Arlington National Cemetery, the Secretary 

10 of the Army’’ and inserting ‘‘or the Secretary of the 

11 Army with respect to Arlington National Cemetery 

12 or the Secretary of the Interior with respect to a 

13 cemetery under the control of the National Park 

14 Service’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS