alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          26,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  651,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,903,498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,740,376
<PP&E>                                      27,017,540
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,628,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,464,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,338,910
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,994
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,116,754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,464,658
<SALES>                                      4,617,234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,617,234
<CGS>                                        3,409,101
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,409,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,458,962
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             642,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,893,008)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,893,008)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,893,008)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.57)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1796

BILLY J. GIBSON, Petitioner, versusDIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES OF LABOR; BULLION HOLLOW ENTERPRISES, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order for the Benefits Review Board. (97-1127) Submitted: November 30, 1998 Decided: December 21, 1998 Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy J. Gibson, Petitioner Pro Se. James Byron Leonard, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Arlington, Virginia; Michael FrancisBlair, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Billy Gibson seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1998). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’sdecision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Gibson v. DOWCP , No. 97-1127 (B.R.B. May 12, 1998). 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
TheHonorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Arkansas. The Honorable James G. Mixon, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court 2 for the Western District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1086

___________ L. D. McMullan; Nila Owens * McMullan, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. National Bank of Commerce, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 3, 1998 Filed: June 9, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. L.D. and Nila McMullan appeal the district court & s order affirming th e 1 bankruptcy court & s judgment in favor of the National Ban k of Commerce of El Dorado 2 in this foreclosure acti on adjudicated as part of their Chapter 11 proceedings. Having-2-

carefu llyreviewed the record, the parties & briefs, and the McMullan & s motion t o supplement the record, we conclude the bankruptc y court & s judgment was correct. We decline to issue an e xtended opinion because the bankruptcy court & s reasons are wellstated in its thorough opinion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLE RK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT .
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DAVID MICHAEL HENSEL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-30089 

D.C. No. 2:93-cr-00196-RSL-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

David Michael Hensel appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying 

his “Motion for Relief from Restitution and Expired Judgment Lien.” We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

The district court correctly concluded that Hensel’s motion was barred by 

* 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

DEC 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-30089 

claim preclusion because he brought the same claim in these proceedings—

namely, that his restitution obligation expired in 2013 because the Mandatory 

Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) could not be applied to extend the 

enforcement of his pre-MVRA restitution judgment—that he had unsuccessfully 

raised in a prior civil garnishment action initiated by the government. See Stewart 

v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating the requirements of 

claim preclusion). Hensel’s argument that claim preclusion does not apply because 

he was denied effective assistance of counsel in his garnishment action, and 

because the instant motion raises the additional issue of “fiscal responsibility,” is 

unavailing. See id. (claim preclusion prohibits litigation of claims that were raised 

or could have been raised in a prior action); United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 

1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 1990) (no right to effective assistance of counsel in 

proceedings in which defendant does not have a constitutional right to counsel); 

see also Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (constitutional right to 

counsel does not extend to collateral attacks).

Even if claim preclusion does not apply, the district court correctly 

concluded that Hensel’s argument fails on the merits. See United States v. 

Blackwell, 852 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that, because the MVRA 

“merely increased the time period over which the government could collect . . . 

fines and restitution,” it applies to judgments entered before the MVRA was 
3 21-30089 

enacted and such application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32



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 Boston Communications Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, E.Y. Snowden, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Karen A. Walker, Vice President, Finance and Administration and
Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



|Date: August 14, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ E.Y. Snowden   
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------
|                      |  |  |  |                    
|                      |  |  |  |                    
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 14, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Karen A. Walker
|                      |  |  |  |                    
|                      |  |  |  |                    



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Boston Communications Group, Inc., and will be retained by Boston Communications Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[No. 35295.

Department Two.

January 12, 1961.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of*Biddy Mack Wigham, *Petitioner,*v. B. J. Rhay, as *Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent.**1*

*Warner, Pierce & Peden (B. Gray Warner,*of counsel), for petitioner.

*The Attorney General*and *Rembert Ryals, Assistant,*for respondent.

1

’Reported in 358 P. (2d) 316.

Per Curiam.

— Upon the authority of *In re Wakefield v. Rhay, ante*p. 168, 356 P. (2d) 596 and *In re Aichele v. Rhay, ante*p. 178, 356 P. (2d) 326, the writ of *habeas corpus*herein is granted; the judgment of conviction is vacated; and the petitioner is remanded to King County for a rearraignment and further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinions in the *Wakefield, supra,*and *Aichele, supra,*cases.
BALTIA - Page 3 of 3

Attached: Page: 1. Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 1 2. Baltia Balance Sheet 2 3. Michael F. Cronin, CPA, Letter In Lieu of Income Statement 3 4. Davit Lipton & Co., LTD Letter Verifying Cash and Lines-of-Credit. 4 5. Reaffirmation of Lines of Credit Agreement with Supporting Documents a. Frank Acquavella 5-7 b. Paul Ferandell 8-9 c. Robert Kaszovitz 10-11 d. Vasel Vasko Gjelaj 12-16 e. Igor Dmitrowsky 17-20 f. Russell Thal 21-23 g. Barry Clare 24-27 h. Nicholas Oppegard 28-30 i. Angel Six, LLC 31-33 j. Jeffrey Morowitz 34-35 6. HSBC Letter Affirming Balance as of April 12, 2011. 36 7. Capital One Bank Letter Affirming Balance as of April 14, 2011 37 8. Baltia Certification Costs Remaining 38 Certification of Service 39Service by email has be en made this date to the following

. jeffr ey .manley @united.com; ca rl.nelson@aa .com; howar d_kass@usairw ay s.com; rbkeine r@cr owell.com; nssparks@f edex.com; rec ohn@hhlaw.c om; prrizz i@hhlaw.com; msinick@ssd.com; hkamen@coa ir.com; sascha .vander bellen@de lta.com; dvaughan@ke lleydrye.com; rpommer @atlasair .com; ben.grave s@everg ree naviation.com; daniel.commins@eve rgree naviation.com; sametta.c .barne tt@delta.com; scott.mcclain@de lta.com; Mark.tre adaw ay @mwaa .com; donald.fields@mwa a.com; sbrocc hi@pany

nj.gov; john.kre pp@faa .g ov

__________/S/__________________________ Steffanie J . L ewis June 2, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOISES ELIAS PEREZ TORRES,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-122

Agency No.

A070-289-956

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 12, 2024**

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Moises Elias Perez Torres, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for 

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying his motion to remand 

to seek cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review that decision and 

* 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

SEP 16 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-122

therefore dismiss the petition.

We are barred from reviewing “‘any judgment regarding the granting of 

relief under’ the provisions governing cancellation of removal . . . except in 

reviewing constitutional claims and legal questions.” Figueroa Ochoa v. Garland, 

91 F.4th 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)). That

jurisdictional bar extends to rulings on procedural motions relating to an alien’s

eligibility for discretionary relief. Id. at 1293–94.

Perez Torres applied for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge 

denied his application on several grounds, including that he lacked a qualifying 

relative for such relief. On appeal, Perez Torres filed a motion to remand, arguing

that he, in fact, has a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal

and, for the first time, presenting evidence of that relative. In dismissing his appeal, 

the Board denied the motion to remand because Perez Torres presented his

arguments “for the first time on appeal,” as well as for the “independent reason” 

that he had “not carried his heavy burden to show that he has a qualifying relative.”

See Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 516, 526 (B.I.A. 2015).

Because the agency denied Perez Torres’s motion to remand based on its 

determination that he failed to establish that he has a qualifying relative, it made a 

judgment grounded in factual findings that we lack jurisdiction to review. See 

Figueroa Ochoa, 91 F.4th at 1293–94; see also Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 
3 23-122

347 (2022). And although Perez Torres argues that the Board erred in applying the 

standard for a motion to reopen when assessing his motion to remand, we have

held that the requirements for both types of motions are essentially the same. See 

Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, because Perez Torres

raises no colorable constitutional or legal challenge to the agency’s decision, the 

exceptions to the preclusion of jurisdiction do not apply. 

PETITION DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 238 (Monday, December 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31429]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-123-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2000, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to 
become effective December 1, 2000.

Twenty Eighth Revised Sheet No. 9

    National states that under Article II, Section 2, of the 
settlement, it is required to recalculate the maximum Interruptible 
Gathering (IG) rate monthly and to charge that rate on the first day of 
the following month if the result is an IG rate more than 2 cents above 
or below the IG rate as calculated under Section 1 of Article II. The 
recalculation produced an IG rate of 34 cents per dth. In addition, 
Article III, Section 1 states that nay overruns of the Firm Gathering 
service provided by National shall be priced at the maximum IG rate.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31429 Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Value City Department Stores, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-44207, 33-50198,
33-55348, 33-55350, 33-78586, 33-80588 and 33-92966) of our report dated October
28, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Value City Department Stores, Inc., its Partnerships and 
its wholly owned subsidiaries as of August 3, 1996 and July 29, 1995 and for 
the years ended August 3, 1996, July 29, 1995 and July 30, 1994 which report 
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Columbus, Ohio
October 29, 1996
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 26, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: February 6, 2004



/s/    CHARLES J. HOGARTYCharles J. Hogarty Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                           23,454
<SECURITIES>                     58,797
<RECEIVABLES>                    21,270
<ALLOWANCES>                        210
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                104,966
<PP&E>                          145,956
<DEPRECIATION>                   30,904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  222,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            39,200
<BONDS>                          11,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                          4,012
<OTHER-SE>                      166,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    222,109
<SALES>                          31,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 46,705
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    23,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  20,700
<INCOME-TAX>                      8,499
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              12,201
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     12,201
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.76
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      10.40a         

    AMENDMENT
      TO 

    6%
      PROMISSORY NOTE

    


    AMENDMENT
      TO 6% PROMISSORY NOTE, is dated as of November
      4, 2008;
      made by
      and between Delta Mutual, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal
      offices located at 111 North Branch Street, Sellersville, PA 18960 (the
“Company”) and Security Systems International, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
      (the “Lender”) with a mailing address of 9034 East Caribbean Lane, Scottsdale,
      AZ 85260. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall
      have the meaning assigned to such term in the Original Note.

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company and the Lender are parties to that certain 6% Promissory Note,
      dated
      May 14, 2008 (the “Original Note”), pursuant to which the Company has borrowed
      the amount of $16,900
      from the
      Lender; 

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Original Note provides that the Maturity Date shall be November 14, 2008;
      and

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company and the Lender have agreed to extend the Maturity Date and to amend
      Section 1.4 of the Original Note; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Original Note, the Company
      and the Lender hereby approve the amendment of the Original Note as set forth
      herein.

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained
      herein, the parties agree as follows:

    


    1. By
      their
      respective execution of this AMENDMENT, the Company and the Lender
      agree that Section 1.4 of the Original Note is hereby amended to read in its
      entirety as follows: “Maturity
      Date”
      shall
      mean December
      15, 2008; and

    


    2. Except
      as
      expressly provided herein, the Original Note shall continue in full force and
      effect.

    


    3. This
      AMENDMENT may be executed by facsimile and in counterparts, which, taken
      together, shall be deemed an original and shall constitute a single
      AMENDMENT.

    


    4.
      IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Lender have caused this AMENDMENT to be
      executed as of the date first written above.

     

    
      	
              DELTA
                MUTUAL, INC.

            	 	
              SECURITY
                SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

            
	
              (COMPANY)

            	 	
              (LENDER)

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	
              By:

            	
              /s/
                Martin G. Chilek

            	 	
              By:

            	
              /s/
                Malcolm W. Sherman

            
	 	
              Martin
                G. Chilek

            	 	 	
              Malcolm
                W. Sherman

            
	 	
              Sr.
                Vice President

            	 	 	
              President