alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15563

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00100-TJC-JRK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DEWAYNE EARL JONES, 

a.k.a. Pokey, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

No. 15-15630

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00119-TJC-MCR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

Case: 15-15563 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

 versus

DEWAYNE EARL JONES, 

a.k.a. Pokey, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(November 10, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Lisa Call, appointed counsel for Dewayne Earl Jones, in this appeal of his 

supervised release revocation and total sentence, has moved to withdraw from 

further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record 

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. 

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of 

merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Jones’s revocation and 

sentence are AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-15563 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 2 of 2
# C_2015306EN.01000301.xml

| 17.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7730 — Groupe Acticall/Sitel Worldwide Corporation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 306/05)

On 9 September 2015, 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 language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7730. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7730. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2015084EN.01000201.xml

| 12.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 March 2015

(2015/C 84/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0578 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4591 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70355 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1204 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0655 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6570 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,293 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 304,17 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1365 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4445 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7721 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3899 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3432 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2102 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4608 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4676 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 193,24 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,0055 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,6245 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6310 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 937,63 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9109 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 46,852 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 65,6568 |
| THB | Thai baht | 34,789 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3102 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5093 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,4101 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0578

JPY

Japanese yen

128,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4591

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70355

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1204

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0655

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6570

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,293

HUF

Hungarian forint

304,17

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1365

RON

Romanian leu

4,4445

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7721

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3899

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3432

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2102

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4608

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4676

KRW

South Korean won

1 193,24

ZAR

South African rand

13,0055

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,6245

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6310

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 937,63

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9109

PHP

Philippine peso

46,852

RUB

Russian rouble

65,6568

THB

Thai baht

34,789

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3102

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5093

INR

Indian rupee

66,4101

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GOLF INTERNATIONAL, 

DBA Desert Canyon Golf,

Petitioner,

 v.

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent.

No. 14-72234

Agency No. 13A00074

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Golf International petitions for review of an order of the Office of

the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

imposing an employer sanction of $57,650 against Golf for 129 violations of the

FILED

NOV 30 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
Immigration and Nationality Act § 274A, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B). We deny the

petition. 

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision to impose a fine of $57,650

against Golf was not arbitrary and capricious. An ALJ’s order for civil money

penalties for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(B) is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1324a(e)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 274a.10(b). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(5),

consideration must “be given to the size of the business of the employer being

charged, the good faith of the employer, the seriousness of the violation, whether

or not the individual was an unauthorized alien, and the history of previous

violations.” 

The ALJ properly considered these factors and found that Golf was a small

business with no history of previous violations, that only three of the employees

were unauthorized aliens, and that there was no bad faith on Golf’s part, but that all

129 of Golf’s violations were serious. The ALJ concluded that, “[a]part from the

seriousness of the violations . . . the statutory factors otherwise incline in Golf’s

favor,” thus, the ALJ rejected the penalty amounts proposed by ICE, which were

“near the maximum permissible,” and instead made a downward adjustment for

each proposed fine, for a total penalty of $57,650. We conclude that the ALJ

properly considered the relevant statutory factors and did not make a clear error of

2
judgment in imposing the fine she did against Golf. We therefore deny Golf’s

petition because the ALJ’s fine was not arbitrary and capricious. 

PETITION DENIED. 

3
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification ofChief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,the undersigned officer of Guitar Center, Inc. (the “*Company*”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)    theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for theperiod ended December 31, 2006 (the “*Report*”) fullycomplies 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 Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        | Date: March 1, 2007  | /s/ ERICK  MASON |
|--------|---------------------------|------------------|
|   | Erick Mason               |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
333-16115,  No. 333-16117,  No. 333-16121,  No.  333-44000,  No. 333-76631,  No.
333-93227,  and No. 333-68054 of InteliData Technologies Corporation on Form S-8
and in Registration Statements No. 333-85313,  No. 333-58202,  and No. 333-75146
of InteliData Technologies Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated March 10,
2004,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of  InteliData  Technologies
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 11, 2004
Exhibit 32.2



SOHU.COM INC.



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 Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Yu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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 of the Company as of June 30, 2004 and results of operations of the Company for the three and months ended
June 30, 2004.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ Carol Yu                     
|Carol Yu, Chief Financial Officer
|                                 
|August 9, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1626

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE ANTONIO LOZANO, Claimant - Appellant, and PROPERTY, 3714 CANCUN LOOP, WEBB COUNTY, LAREDO, TEXAS, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, Defendant, HILL TOP FARM, LIMITED, a Texas Limited Partnership, Claimant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-98-11-1) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Antonio Lozano, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Jose Antonio Lozano appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Government in this forfeiture action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lozano , No. CA-98-11-1 (M.D.N.C. May 17, 2002). 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00050

- CV

IN RE Jane SPERBER

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

On January 30, 2017, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

emergency stay. Relator has since with drawn the motion for emergency stay. This court is of

the opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further

consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in int erest

may file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus in this court no later than

February 16 , 2017. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

52.4.

It is so ORDERED on February 1, 2017

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______________________________ _

Keith E. Hottle , Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016

- PC

- 1067 , styled In the Estate of Matthew A. Sperber, Deceased

, pending in the Probate Court No 1

, Bexar County, Texas, the H onorable Kelly Cross presiding.
# C_2015437EN.01000201.xml

| 29.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7829 — Transgourmet/C+C Pfeiffer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 437/03)

On 21 December 2015, 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 German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7829. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7829. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for th e 1 District of Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2099

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Everett C. Gilbertson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 28, 1997 Filed: December 10, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Af ter a jury trial, Everett C. Gilbertson was convicted of filing false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The district court sentenced him to 18 months in 1 prison. Gilbertson appeals, and we affirm. We reject as completely meritless Gilbertson & s argument that the United States District Court lacked jurisdiction over his prosecution for t ax crimes. See United States-2-

v. Watson , 1 F.3d 733, 734 (8 th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (in prosecution for fraudulent tax returns, district court had jurisdiction, because 18 U.S.C. § 3231 “provides district cour ts with original jurisdiction of all violations of federal law”; rejecting claim that “free citizen” of Oklahoma was not United States citizen); U nited States v. Gerads , 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (federal income tax is not voluntary ; rejecting appellant s & argument that “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota” were no t United States citizens subject to taxes), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1193 (1994)
. Simila rly meritless is Gilbertson & s claim that the federal jury statute discriminate s against Minnesota citizens like him who are not “federal citizens.” As Gilbertson & s under-reporting of income for the years 1991 and 1992 wa s clearly prohibited by the

statute under which he was convicted, we find no merit to his generalizedargument regarding the vagueness of the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1); United States v. Kaylor , 877 F.2d 658, 661 (8th Cir.) (due process requirements), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 871 (1989). We further hold that Gilbertson has failed to show any extra-ju dicial source of bias to warrant the trial judge & s recusal, and that the district court properly denied his motion for release pending appeal. Because Gilbertson & s arguments regarding freedom of information and civi l removal s tatutes are unrelated to his criminal convictions, we do not address thos e issues in this criminal appeal. Gilbertson & s “Motion to Correct Transcript of Sentencing Hearing” is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### More and another v. Ruggles, Survivor, &c.

If the proceedings of a material-manare insufficient for the purpose of enforcing a lien under the statute, that is no reason why he may not take a personal judgment, if he establishes his right to one.

*276May 15.

EBEOR to tbe Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

Buggies, as surviving partner &c., sued out a summons against the plaintiffs in error, in April, 1852, for breach of covenant, damages $800. He also filed a petition claiming a lien for that sum upon tbe saw-mill of tbe plaintiffs in error. On tbe 12tb of April, 1854, a declaration was filed in tbe action of covenant, and on tbe same day a default was entered, and an interlocutory judgment. October 17, 1854, a writ of inquiry was issued to tbe sheriff, who returned an inquisition, in which tbe plaintiff’s damages were assessed at $600, and a personal judgment was rendered against tbe defendants below for that sum, and costs.

*Freeman ds*Wheeler, for plaintiffs in error,

urged, among other things, that tbe petition for tbe lien did not contain a sufficient description of tbe premises; that tbe declaration showed that tbe indebtedness accrued more than a year before tbe commencement of tbe suit, &c.

*F. 8.*Bragg, for defendant in error.

*By the*Court,

*Paine, J.*

The only objections urged, go to tbe sufficiency of the proceedings for the purpose of enforcing a lien. But as no judgment was rendered for a lien, we do not see bow those objections are material. The fact of such insufficiency is no reason why tbe plaintiff may not take a personal judgment, if be establishes tbe right to one.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135808 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135808 

 COA: 282405 

Genesee CC: 01-007827-FC 

LONNIE NOKEEMA JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would remand this case to the Court of Appeals to decide whether to 

grant, deny, or order other relief, in accordance with MCR 7.205(D)(2). 

d0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Tuesday 21st 

 May, 1996. 

VDO Yazaki Company, et al., Appellants, 

 against Record No. 0567-95-4 

 Claim No. 167-66-93 

Robin S. Snyder, Appellee. 

From the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission 

An order dated April 3, 1996 was received from the Supreme 

Court of Virginia on April 23, 1996 and is recorded as follows: 

VDO Yazaki Company, et al., Appellants, 

 against Record No. 960470 

 Court of Appeals No. 0567-95-4 

Robin S. Snyder, Appellee. 

From the Court of Appeals of Virginia 

Upon consideration of the petition for appeal filed herein, 

an appeal is awarded the appellants from a judgment rendered by the 

Court of Appeals of Virginia on February 6, 1996, in the above-styled 

proceeding. Upon further consideration, the said judgment is vacated 

and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Virginia for 

reconsideration in light of this Court's decisions in The Steinrich 

Group, et al. v. Claudia H. Jemmott, Record No. 950829, Perdue Farms, 

Inc. v. Linda Kay Martin, Record No. 951050, and Wampler-Longacre 
Chicken, Inc. et al. v. Shirley A. Biller, Record No. 951072 (March 1, 

1996). 

This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of 

Virginia and to the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 /s/ David B. Beach 

 Clerk 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 Clerk
**EXHIBIT 32.2**








**CERTIFICATION**


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
      302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of IMPART Media Group,
      Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      Stephen M. Wilson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.








Date:   August
                8, 2007
            By:
            /s/Stephen
                M. WilsonStephen
                M. WilsonChief
                Financial Officer





______________________





This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.