alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-6540



# 
R ODERICK B LACK , Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-15-BO, CA-01-2-2-BO) Submitted: August 14, 2001 Decided: September 19, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Roderick Black, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Roderick Black seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion as untimely. On appeal, Black contends the district court was obliged to consider his motion because the Supreme Court’s holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Richardson v. United States , 526 U.S. 813 (1999), and Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137 (1995), renderhis motion timely, and Black’s claim based on newly discovered evidence was brought with due diligence. For reasons stated herein, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. As a preliminary matter, Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. United States v. Sanders , 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir. 2001). Additionally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bousley v. United States , 523 U.S. 614 (1998), which applied Bailey retroactively, preceded Black’s § 2255 motion by over one year. Consequently, Black’s motion is untimely as to these claims.Finally, to the extent Black raises a timely challenge to his conviction under Richardson , we note the jury returned guilty verdicts as to several offenses that were listed in the indictment as predicateoffenses to the continuing criminal enterprise for which he was convicted. Consequently, the district court’s alleged failure to give an instruction meeting the requirements of Richardson is harmless error. See United States v. Brown , 202 F.3d 691, 700 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Escobar de Jesus , 187 F.3d 148, 162 (1st Cir. 1999)). Finally, we find Black’s newly discovered evidence could have beenpresented earlier with the exercise of due diligence and thus is timebarred under § 2255. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Black’s appeal. 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 2 U NITED S TATES v. B LACK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         176,737
<SECURITIES>                                 4,105,984
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,332,252
<PP&E>                                         213,385
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,604,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          336,606
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         4,972
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,262,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,604,501
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,375,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,314,266)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,314,266)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,314,266)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
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

JAVIER CONTRERAS-MAGANA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72939

Agency No. A095-707-582

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Javier Contreras-Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

JUL 31 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72939

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due

process and equal protection claims. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109

(9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion by not continuing Contreras-Magana’s

merits hearing, because Contreras-Magana did not request a continuance of that

hearing, his counsel confirmed that he was prepared to proceed with the case, and

the IJ had granted Contreras-Magana’s request for a 3-month continuance at the

previous hearing. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A]

denial of a continuance . . . must be evaluated on a case by case basis . . . .”); cf.

United States v. Hernandez-Valenzuela, 932 F.2d 803, 804 (9th Cir. 1991)

(“Appellant cannot now claim that the district court abused its discretion in failing

to grant a continuance that was never requested.”).

The IJ did not violate Contreras-Magana’s right to due process or equal

protection by not continuing the hearing, because Contreras-Magana did not

request a continuance, received a full and fair hearing, and has not demonstrated

that his treatment differed from that of similarly situated persons. See Gutierrez v.

Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1090 n.11 (9th Cir. 2011); Hammad v. Holder, 603 F.3d

536, 546 (9th Cir. 2010); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27

(9th Cir. 2007).
3 11-72939

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that

Contreras-Magana failed to demonstrate the requisite hardship for cancellation of

removal. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Contreras-Magana’s contention that his

case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Calvin West, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered November 16, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered November 16, 2014, affirmed.</p><p>Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]). The factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that defendant was "operating a [motor] vehicle"; that the officer "took a forged temporary South Carolina license plate from the rear license plate holder of the above mentioned vehicle," a plate that the officer knew was "forged based upon ... [her] training and experience," including that the plate "lacked a vehicle identification number," "the South Carolina state seal" and "a bar code," all of which a "genuine" South Carolina temporary license plate would have had.</p><p>Giving these facts "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find that the accusatory instrument sufficiently alleged criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 170.20). "[A]s a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading" (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), the information adequately alleged that the plate attached to defendant's vehicle was a forged instrument (see People v Hodges, 246 AD2d 824, 826 [1998]). Likewise, for purposes of our threshold, pleading-stage inquiry, the accusatory instrument, read as a whole, specified sufficient information from which defendant's knowledge and intent could be inferred.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 16, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<PAGE>                                                              Exhibit 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                     ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                     (000s omitted except for per common share data)

                                                    Year Ended December 31,
                                                ------------------------------
                                                  1997       1996       1995
                                                  ----       ----       ----
<S>                                             <C>        <C>            <C>
BASIC - 
Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding..........................    27,333     27,400     28,110
                                                ========    =======    =======

Net earnings available to 
  common stockholders.........................  $115,806    $86,631    $67,622 
                                                ========    =======    =======

Net earnings per common share ................  $   4.24    $  3.16    $  2.41
                                                ========    =======    ======= 
DILUTED -
Weighted average number of shares               
  outstanding..................................   27,333     27,400     28,110
                                              
Dilutive effect of stock options and
  stock awards.................................      567        388        264
                                                --------    -------    -------
Weighted average number of common and
  diluted equivalent shares....................   27,900     27,788     28,374 
                                                ========    =======    =======

Net earnings available to common
  stockholders................................. $115,806    $86,631    $67,622
                                                ========    =======    =======
                                                
Net earnings per common share ................  $   4.15    $  3.12    $  2.38
                                                ========    =======    ======= 
</TABLE>
# C_2022309EN.01000101.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10652 – MOL / LOTOS PALIWA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 309/01)

On 15 July 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10652. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10652. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### GUERRA et al. v. STATE.

No. 20594.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 22, 1939.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Dec. 20, 1939.

R. B. Rentfro, Jr., of Brownsville, for Guerra.

A. Hernandez, of Brownsville, for Perez.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

This record is before us containing no showing in the minutes of the lower court of a sentence having been pronounced, nor any notice of appeal having been given herein. The jurisdiction of this court has therefore not attached. See Branch’s Peí-nal Code, p. 302, Sec. 588.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Re-Instate Appeal

GRAVES, Judge. -

This cause has been heretofore dismissed by this court because of the fact that no sentence appeared in the record. It now appears that the minutes of the court below contain a proper sentence, but the clerk through inadvertence failed to incorporate the same in the record, and that a supplemental transcript presented to us shows a proper sentence. The judgment of dismissal is set aside, and we proceed to consider the same upon its merits.

The appellants both pleaded guilty be-' fore the court to the theft of a horse, and were both given a sentence of five years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record. However there is much complaint of the fact that these appellants were promised a suspended sentence, in the event of a plea of guilty, by some of the officers of the court, not including the judge. This contention, however, is not borne out by the record presented to this court. The facts are very meager, and had there been any objection .made to the major portion thereof they would doubtless have been excluded ; but unfortunately for appellants, through their attorneys, in open court they admitted all the allegations contained in the indictment, and thus made a judicial confession of their guilt in the joint theft of a horse. This confession alone would be a sufficient basis for the upholding of a verdict of guilt. See 18 Tex.Jur. 183.

It is also worthy of note that each appellant took the witness stand and implicated not only himself but also each other in this offense.

Under the record as presented to us we have no other recourse than to affirm this judgment, which is accordingly done.
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 11.1 COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                                         September 30,             September 30,
                                                    ------------------------  ------------------------  
                                                       1997         1996          1997         1996
                                                    -----------  -----------  ------------  ----------
<S>                                                   <C>         <C>           <C>          <C>
Primary:
  Weighted average common shares
   outstanding..................................       13,000      11,619        12,998       8,855
  Net effect of dilutive stock options based
   on the treasury stock method using
   average market price.........................          378          --           378          --
                                                     --------     -------      --------     -------
Totals..........................................       13,378      11,619        13,376       8,855
                                                     ========     =======      ========     =======
Net income (loss) attributable to common
  shares........................................     $    707     $(1,836)     $    (57)    $(6,211)
                                                     ========     =======      ========     =======
Per share amount................................     $    .05     $ (0.16)     $   0.00     $ (0.70)
                                                     ========     =======      ========     =======
Fully Diluted:
Weighted average common shares
   outstanding..................................       13,000                    12,998
Net effect of dilutive stock options
   based on the treasury stock method using
   quarter-end market price which is greater
   than average market price....................          383                       383
                                                     --------                  --------         
Totals..........................................       13,383                    13,381
                                                     ========                  ========         
Net income (loss) attributable to common
 shares.........................................     $    707                  $    (57)
                                                     ========                  ========

Per share amount................................     $   0.05                  $   0.00
                                                     ========                  ========
</TABLE>




                                      17
<PAGE>   1


                              EXHIBIT 23(A)

                      INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





To the Shareholders and
Board of Directors of Zemex Corporation

We hereby consent to the incorporation in the Zemex Corporation Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 of our
Independent Auditors' Reports, each dated February 5, 1999, which appear
on page 32 of the Annual Report to Shareholders and page 15 of the Form
10-K, respectively.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Toronto, Ontario
February 5, 1999




<PAGE>   2


                            ZEMEX CORPORATION
                             AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  SCHEDULE IX - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING
                          ACCOUNTS AND RESERVES


                     FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
COLUMN A                       COLUMN B            COLUMN C         COLUMN D        COLUMN E        COLUMN F
--------                       --------            --------         --------        --------        --------

                                                  ADDITIONS
                              BALANCE AT          CHARGED TO         OTHER                          BALANCE
                               BEGINNING          COSTS AND        ADDITIONS                         AT END
DESCRIPTION                    OF PERIOD           EXPENSES       (DEDUCTIONS)     DEDUCTIONS      OF PERIOD
-----------                    ---------           --------       ------------     ----------      ---------
<S>                           <C>                 <C>              <C>             <C>            <C>      
1998
RESERVES - OTHER              $1,014,000            $64,000         $(72,000)              --     $1,006,000

ALLOWANCE FOR
  UNCOLLECTABLE ACCOUNTS         328,000              5,000               --           $4,000        329,000



1997
RESERVES - OTHER                $599,000           $165,000         $250,000               --     $1,014,000

ALLOWANCE FOR
  UNCOLLECTABLE ACCOUNTS         452,000             84,000          (76,000)        $132,000        328,000


1996
RESERVES - OTHER                $605,000           $100,000               --         $106,000       $599,000

ALLOWANCE FOR
  UNCOLLECTABLE ACCOUNTS         386,000            148,000           $5,000           87,000        452,000

</TABLE>


                                      S-1
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 Annual Report of SHANDONG RUITAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD.. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Anna Herbst, President 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Anna Herbst


Anna Herbst, President and Chairman

February 13, 2007
EXHIBIT 11

                            VALCOM, INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                      FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                     DECEMBER 31, 2001 AND 2000
<TABLE>
Computation of earnings per common share
<CAPTION>
                                            Three Months     Three Months
                                              Ended            Ended
                                          Dec. 31, 2001    Dec. 31, 2000
                                            --------------   --------------

                                       <c>              <c>
Shares outstanding:                           9,757,649        8,909,401
Weighted average shares outstanding           9,135,419       13,770,878
Net loss                                   $     49,217    $  (1,030,227)
Preferred Dividend                                --               --
                                           --------------   --------------
Total                                            49,217       (1,030,227)
Net income (loss) per share                $       0.01     $     (0.04)

</TABLE>