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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ARTISIA YESENIA ALCAZARGONZALEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74469

Agency No. A095-176-434

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 6, 2012** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Artisia Yesenia Alcazar-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her

motion to remand to present new evidence in support of her application for

FILED

MAR 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74469

cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,

538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and we grant the petition for review and

remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Alcazar-Gonzalez’s motion to

remand where the new evidence she presented with her motion was sufficient

under In re Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002), to establish prima facie

eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,

600 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (to establish a prima facie case, petitioner must show a

reasonable likelihood of satisfying the statutory requirements for relief). 

We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA with

instructions to remand to the immigration judge for a new hearing on AlcazarGonzalez’s cancellation application.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
Tyrell BRAGG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2035

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Úradný vestník C 134A/3. m

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 134A |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 573. mája 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 134A

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 573. mája 2014

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Korigendá |
| 2014/C 134A/01 | Korigendum k oznámeniu o verejnom výberovom konaní — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Administrátori (AD 7) v týchto oblastiach: 1. Digitálna forenzná analýza 2. Operačná analýza — (Úradný vestník Európskej únie C 88 A z 27. marca 2014) | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

Korigendá

2014/C 134A/01

Korigendum k oznámeniu o verejnom výberovom konaní — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Administrátori (AD 7) v týchto oblastiach: 1. Digitálna forenzná analýza 2. Operačná analýza — (Úradný vestník Európskej únie C 88 A z 27. marca 2014)

(Úradný vestník Európskej únie C 88 A z 27. marca 2014)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 134A/02 | Prehľad výberových konaní V Ú. v. EÚ C A | 2 |

2014/C 134A/02

Prehľad výberových konaní V Ú. v. EÚ C A

2

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

Korigendá

| 3.5.2014 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 134/1

---

Korigendum k oznámeniu o verejnom výberovom konaní

EPSO/AD/278/14 – ADMINISTRÁTORI (AD 7)

v týchto oblastiach:

| 1. | DIGITÁLNA FORENZNÁ ANALÝZA |
| --- | --- |

1.

DIGITÁLNA FORENZNÁ ANALÝZA

| 2. | OPERAČNÁ ANALÝZA |
| --- | --- |

2.

OPERAČNÁ ANALÝZA

(
  Úradný vestník Európskej únie C 88 A z 27. marca 2014
  )

2014/C 134 A/01

Na strane 7 v oddiele VIII bode 1:

namiesto:

„Dátum uzávierky (vrátane potvrdenia): 29. apríl 2014 o 12.00 hod. (poludnie) bruselského času.“

má byť:

„Dátum uzávierky (vrátane potvrdenia): 6. mája 2014 o 12.00 hod. (poludnie) bruselského času.“

---

3.5.2014

| 3.5.2014 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 134/2

---

PREHĽAD VÝBEROVÝCH KONANÍ V Ú. V. EÚ C A

2014/C 134 A/02

Pripojený je zoznam Ú. v. EÚ C A, ktoré boli vydané počas tohto roku.

Ak nie je uvedené inak, Ú. v. EÚ vyšli vo všetkých jazykoch.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

---
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

# **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 Acrodyne Communications, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,Nathaniel Ostroff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Acrodyne Communications, Inc. and will be retained by AcrodyneCommunications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

 

 

 

 
| /s/ Nathaniel Ostroff   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Nathaniel Ostroff       |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 15, 2003            |   |

 

----
INTEREST RECOVERY, INC., and William Crescenzo ; Appellants, v. Pat FRANK, as Clerk of Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY; Sheila M. Hensley; Jorge L. De La Barra; et al., Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2879

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Alejandra GARCIA, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BISCAYNE BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1884

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Manuel FONTES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30027

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Christian S. Nafzger, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jesus Manuel Fontes, Pro Se.

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argupent. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Manuel Fontes appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fontes contends that the district court should have further reduced his sentence. Contrary to Fontes’s view, the district court properly calculated his amended guideline range as 168 to 210 months with*752out considering the one-level variance that the court granted at his original sentencing. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); *United States v. Ornelas,*825 F.3d 548, 552 (9th Cir. 2016). Because the district court reduced Fontes’s sentence to 168-months, he' is ineligible for any further sentence reduction. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
STATE of Louisiana v. Donald Javon ROSS

NO. 2017-K-1785

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

*571Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
Jonathan B. BLUNTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1146

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 11, 2017. Rehearing Denied February 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6693

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK , N.A. , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROBERT W. WAZNEY, a/k/a Robert William Wazney , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv
- 00921

- HMH )

Submitted : August 23, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert Wazney , Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Andrew Charles , Sarah Beth Nielsen , B. Rush Smith, III , NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP , Columbia, South Carol ina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Wazney appeals from the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the underlying foreclosur e proceeding back to state court. We dismiss the appeal. Remand orders are generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012)

. The Supreme Court has explained that the appellate restrictions of “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) [i.e. , lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d) applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds specified in § 1447(c).” Borneman v . United States , 213 F.3d 819, 824

- 25 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing § 1447(c). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court ’ s order. Thus, we grant JP M organ Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We deny Wazney’s motion s for a stay pending appeal and for summary judgment, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Alvin FEW, DOC #355569, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3457

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The
      Board
      of Directors


Harman
      International Industries, Incorporated:




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.
      33-28973, 33-60236, 33-59605, 333-02197, 333-28793, 333-32673, 333-103487 and
      333-103488 on Form S-8 of Harman International Industries, Incorporated of
      our
      reports dated August 29, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets
      of Harman International Industries, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of June
      30,
      2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash
      flows, and shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and the related
      financial statement schedule, for each of the years in the three-year period
      ended June 30, 2007, and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of
      internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2007 and the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2007,
      which reports appear in the June 30, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Harman
      International Industries, Incorporated.




As
      discussed in Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company
      adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans*
      effective June 30, 2007.







/s/
      KPMG
      LLP




McLean,
      Virginia


August
      29, 2007
Richard Lee ESTES, Appellant, v. Kimberly Jo ESTES, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2283

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-308-310 and 520-521 (Fifth Review)]

## Determinations

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted these reviews on July 1, 2021 (86 FR 35133) and determined on October 4, 2021 that it would conduct expedited reviews (86 FR 72620, December 22, 2021).

                    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on February 2, 2022. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5276 (February 2022), entitled                     *Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand: Investigation Nos. 731 TA 308-310 and 520-521 (Fifth Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 2, 2022.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2022-02477 Filed 2-4-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Sonya Patrice WYATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2680

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
LINE-OF-CREDIT


LINE-OF-CREDIT

DRAW AUTHORIZATION







Date Executed: February  27, 2009




I, Lawrence Williams, Jr., Treasurer of Gateway Certifications, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby authorize and direct Kwajo Sarfoh to make a loan advancement in the amount of $7,000, against our Commercial Promissory Note.  I acknowledge that the advance will increase the balance due under the Commercial Promissory Note.







/s/ Lawrence Williams, Jr.




Lawrence Williams, Jr. 

Treasurer
Year Amount Notes

1999 $ 1,800,000

2000 $ 790,000

2001 $ 1,000,000

2002 $ 900,000

2003 $ 3,900,000

2004 $ 3,896,000

2005 $ 2,760,000

2006 $ 3,000,000

2007 unknown

2008 unknown

2009 unknown

2010 unknown

2011 unknown

2012 unknown

2013 unknown

2014 $ 5,980,600

2015 $ 2,392,100

2016 $ 5,047,000

2017 $ 10,260,000

ARNG IH Budget Amounts

FOIA Requested Record #J-15-0085 (Item 3) 

Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICHARD RIVERA, §

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00160

- CR

Appellant,

§ Appeal from the

V.

§ 396th District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Tarrant County, Texas

Appellee. §

§ (TC# 1262439R)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J. Not Participating
Cash W. PAWLEY, Sr., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4694

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2018

Cash W. Pawley, Sr., pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c).

Wolf, Lewis, and Jay, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BACK BAY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         326,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    701,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,566,000
<PP&E>                                      61,583,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,980,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,672,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,579,000
<BONDS>                                      4,280,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,458,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,672,000
<SALES>                                     24,593,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,593,000
<CGS>                                        6,890,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,517,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,132,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                867,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   321,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            546,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   546,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
exhbt1025.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    Exhibit
10.25

    


    


    


    


    Description
of terms of oral consulting agreement between

    GeoGlobal
Resources Inc. and Amicus Services Inc.

     

    


    GeoGlobal
Resources Inc. (the Registrant) is a party to an oral agreement with Amicus
Services Inc. an Alberta corporation (Amicus), whose outstanding shares are
owned by Vincent Roy, the brother of Jean Paul Roy, the President, chief
executive officer and the principal stockholder of the
Registrant.  Pursuant to the oral agreement, Amicus provides IT and
computer related consulting services to the Registrant and its subsidiaries and
the Registrant compensates Amicus for those services.

    


    The IT
and computer related services provided by Amicus cover such duties as;
organizing, managing and maintaining a geological database in Canada relating to
GeoGlobal’s exploration interests in India and elsewhere; upgrading on a
continuing basis all information systems (both software and hardware) and
network systems (including onsite and offsite backups of data and security
issues) of a corporate nature; and providing ongoing IT and computer related
services as required by the Registrant’s Calgary staff.

    


    The
hourly rate paid to Amicus through December 31, 2007 was
Cdn$40.00.  Commencing January 1, 2008 the hourly rate increased to
Cdn$70.00.

    


    Amicus
will provide these IT and computer related services to the Registrant
approximately three days per week, as requested by the Registrant.

    


    The oral
agreement can be immediately terminated by either party at any time by notice
given to the other party.

    


    Vincent
Roy as the sole stockholder of Amicus, is entitled to participate in the
Registrant’s Stock Incentive Plans on such terms and as and when determined and
in the sole discretion of the Registrant’s Board of Directors in consultation
with Management of the Registrant.