alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frydel Riquelme SAMAYOA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72298

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 15, 2017

Eduardo A. Paredes, Attorney, Law Office of Eduardo A. Paredes, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Samuel P. Go, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*563MEMORANDUM **

Frydel Riquelme Samayoa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Boarjá of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA correctly determined that Sa-mayoa is statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status because his controlled substance violation renders him inadmissible. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1255(i)(2)(A).

The BIA also correctly determined that Samayoa is statutorily ineligible to apply for relief under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) because he was not admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996) (relief available to “[ajliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence”); *Matter of Ponce De Leon-Ruiz,*21 I. & N. Dec. 154, 157 (BIA 1996) (noting eligibility under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) requires an alien to be lawfully admitted for permanent residence). Samayoa’s contention that former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) violates equal protection because it is not available to aliens not lawfully admitted for permanent residence is unavailing. *Cf. Taniguchi v. Schultz,*303 F.3d 950, 957-58 (9th Cir. 2002) (although 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) provides “a waiver of deportation to non-[lawful permanent resident] aggravated felons while denying such a waiver to [lawful permanent resident] aggravated felons,” the distinction does not violate equal protection).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Samay-oa’s unexhausted contention that the IJ erred in determining that Samayoa failed to establish a fear of future persecution, and he does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived this contention. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Willie LAWSON, as Parent and Guardian, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1105

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>
 



EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE        



PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED BASIS:      
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                            
                                           For the three months ended     For the nine months ended   
                                                 September 30,                  September 30,  
                                              1996         1995              1996         1995      
                                          ---------------------------    ---------------------------     
<S>                                        <C>           <C>              <C>           <C> 
Net income                                  $94,183     ($286,600)        $425,177      ($68,032)     
                                                                                                      
Weighted average shares outstanding         704,854       703,132          704,854       704,097      
                                                                                                      
                                                                                                      
Earnings per share                            $0.13        ($0.41)           $0.60        ($0.10)     
                                                                                                                  
</TABLE>
Christopher THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3742

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 13, 2018]

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Gerber, C.J.

The defendant argues that the circuit court erred by revoking his youthful offender designation while sentencing him for violating probation. The defendant is correct that "once a trial court imposes a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status upon resentencing after a violation of probation or community control." *Smith v. State* , 143 So.3d 1023, 1024-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The reason for this requirement is because "[a] youthful offender designation carries certain benefits within the criminal justice system that are not available to non-youthful offender prisoners." *Id.* at 1025 ; § 958.11, Fla. Stat. (2010).

Nevertheless, the defendant presently is not entitled to relief because he did not preserve this error for review by either objecting at sentencing or timely filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). *See**Davis v. State* , 223 So.3d 1106, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("The trial court erred in not maintaining [the defendant's] youthful offender status when it sentenced him after violating community control. Nevertheless, [the defendant] is presently not entitled to relief because he did not preserve this error for review by either objecting at sentencing or by timely filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).").

Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's sentence, but without prejudice to the defendan *1132t seeking postconviction relief related to his youthful offender designation.

*Affirmed without prejudice.*

Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.
SERVED MAY 14, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COMLUX AVIATION SERVICES LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10GL0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAANO.FAA-2010-0317 

DEPTOFTRANSPORWii 

A ifl . !.) L 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. EIR 2009-GL-l 1-0044) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Isaac D. Benkin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons named in the attached Service List. 

Roimie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative 

<^. ^ 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA DOCKET NO. CP10GL0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Mark A. Nelson, Vice President 

Comlux Aviation Services, LLC, Respondent 

Formerly, Comlux Completion USA 

2640 S. Cargo Drive 

Indianapolis, IN 46241 

TEL: 317-472-7370 

FAX: 317-472-7389 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Ellis BARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHIEF JUDGE SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS; Howard County Circuit Court; Howard County Dist. Court; Howard County Police, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6362

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: August 16, 2017

Ellis Barber, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ellis Harley Barber appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Barber v. Chief Judge Special Court of Appeals,*No. 1:17-cv-00554-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
**EXHIBIT 32.2 – CFO Certification**

 

**HEARTLAND, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADDED BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry Gruenbaum, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by 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 and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

By: /s/ Jerry Gruenbaum

Jerry Gruenbaum

Chief Financial Officer, and

Director

 

August 2, 2005

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Heartland, Inc., and will be retained by Heartland, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Cit y o f

Austi n Aviatio n Departmen t Austin-Bergstro m Internationa l Airpor t 360 0 Presidential Blvd. , Ste . 411 , Austin , Texa s 7871 9 512/530-ABl A(2242 ) Fax : 5121530-768 6 niww.ahia.or

g Marc h 8 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretary U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAve , S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010^«^B f Dea rIVIr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo rth e opportunit yt o expres s th e suppor to fth e Cit yo fAusti n Departmen to fAviatio n fo r th e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunit yan d propose d join tbusines s agreemen tfile d b yAmerica n Airline s an d Japa n Airlines . Approva l o fth e propose d arrangement s wil l upgrad e trans-Pacifi cservic e option s availabl e t o Austin ; America n Airline s i s th e carrie rwhos e servic e patter n a tAusti n provide s th e mos t effectiv e servic e betwee n Austi n an d pacifi cgatewa yairports . Wit h anti-trus timmunity , th e oneworl d allianc e wil l b e able t o provid e mor e effectiv e schedule s t o destination s acros s th e Pacifi cRi m an d tha t i s importan t t o th e technolog ybusinesse s base d i n Austin . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n America n Airline s an d Japa n Airline s i s vita l fo rth e oneworl d allianc e t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta ran d SkyTea m alliances . Thi s increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o fth e Department' s Ope n Skie s policy-firs tbysolidifyin g U.S . -Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b yservin g a

s a foundatio n fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . Withou tapprova l o fth e application , effectiv e competitio n acros s th e pacifi cwil l b e reduce d t o tw o allianc e group s an d w e believ e tha t Austin' s trans-Pacifi cai rservic e wil l deteriorat e becaus e neithe ro fthos e alliance s has a majo rpresenc e i n Austin . Afte ra thoroug h review , w e encourag e th e Departmen to fTransportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul d enabl e th e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive rhighl ycompetitiv e ai r transportatio n services . Approva l o fth e AA/JA Lapplicatio n wil l hav e a positiv e impac to n ai rtrave l by offerin g customer s mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensur e tha tcustomer s continu e t o belnefi t fro m th e competitio n afforde d b ythre e competitiv e ai ralliances . W e urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . Sincerely , I Smit h Executiv e Directo r
#### UUSI, LLC, Appellant v. WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee

2016-1517

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 9, 2016

Joseph Barber, Howard & Howard AN torneys, PLLC, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Daniel Bliss, Gerald E. McGlynn III, Royal Oak, MI.

Charles Sanders, Latham *&*Watkins LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Gabriel Bell, Gabrielle Lahatte, Washington, DC.

(Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
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 Compuprint, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David R. Allison,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that;

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

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

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.

/s/ David R. Allison
-------------------------
Chief Executive Officer

April 14, 2005
EXHIBIT
32.2 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 SED
International Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lyle Dickler, Vice
President of Finance of the Company, certify, 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, as amended; and (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request. Dated: October 29, 2007 /s/ LYLE DICKLERLyle DicklerVice President of Finance(Principal Financial Officer)


---
#### AMERICAN PIONEER LIFE INSURANCE Company *v.*Mrs. Lawrence E. SMITH

73-199

504 S.W. 2d 356

Opinion delivered January 28, 1974

*Davidson, Plastiras & Horne, Ltd.,*by: *Cyril Hollings-worth,*for appellant.

*Wright, Lindsey ir Jennings,*by: *Ronald A. May,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant American Pioneer Life Insurance Company seeks to avoid its liability upon a credit life insurance policy issued to Lawrence E. Smith upon the basis that his statement in the application that “I am now in good health” was incorrect within the meaning of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 66-3208 (Repl. 1966). It is admitted that the insured suffered from diabetes mellitus, having been hospitalized in 1956, and that he remained on medication therefore until his death. It is also admitted that he suffered a heart attack in 1968, which resulted in his receiving a disability retirement and that he continued to make regular visits to his doctor and to take three different types of medication therefor until the time of his death on September 23, 1971. The trial court held in favor of the beneficiaries.

For the reasons set forth in *Dopson*v. *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*244 Ark. 659, 432 S.W. 2d 410 (1968), *Life & Casualty Ins. Co.*v. *Smith,*245 Ark. 934, 436 S.W. 2d 97 and *Union Life Insurance Company*v. *Davis, Adm’x.,*247 Ark. 1054, 449 S.W. 2d 192 (1970), we reverse. Upon the admitted facts, we deem the statement *“I*am *950now in good health” to be an incorrect statement as a matter of law. Furthermore, we deem the proof as to materiality of the incorrect statement to be undisputed. Not only did the expert testify that the policy would not have been issued had the true facts been correctly stated but the autopsy reports shows the immediate cause of death as congestive heart failure.

Reversed.

Harris, C.J., not participating.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

## Water Analysis
Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 1/31/2012 Sample Number: 120147-001 Date Collected:01/11/2012 07:45 Date Received:1/11/2012 

### 1st Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 548 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 01/13/2012 10:53 ug/L Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) 470 10 TLT AEP Method 2 01/26/2012 

### Sample Number: 120147-002 Date Collected:01/11/2012 07:45 Date Received:1/11/2012 

## 2nd Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 4.68 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 01/13/2012 10:58 ug/L Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) 3.07 0.2 TLT AEP Method 0.04 01/26/2012 

### Sample Number: 120147-003 Date Collected:01/11/2012 07:45 Date Received:1/11/2012 

## Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 1.18 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 01/13/2012 11:03 ug/L Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) 0.518 0.2 TLT AEP Method 0.04 01/26/2012

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 120147 Page 1 of 1
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024 SC-2023-0970 Ex parte Michael K. Tolbert. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Michael K. Tolbert v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles and Alabama Department of Corrections) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-373; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0781). CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on February 9, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
#### Special Situations Fund III, L.P., et al., Respondents, v Attunity, Ltd., Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 619]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman J.), entered April 17, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiffs $603,333.33 in liquidated damages for defendant’s failure to file a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and have it declared effective within the deadlines set by the parties’ contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*Mosler Safe Co. v Maiden Lane Safe Deposit Co.*(199 NY 479 [1910]) established the general rule that where delays are caused by the mutual fault of the parties to a contract, a liquidated damages clause is abrogated and a claimant must resort to recovery for actual damages. It would be inequitable and illogical to allow a claimant to reap the benefit of the liquidated damages clause for its own wrongdoing *(cf. X.L.O. Concrete Corp. v John T. Brady & Co.,*66 NY2d 970 [1985], *affg*104 AD2d 181 [1984]). Applying this rationale to the circumstances herein, the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the liquidated damages clause would be abrogated only if plaintiffs’ conduct with respect to certain specific acts allegedly contributing to the delays was wrongful or arbitrary and capricious. In any event, the record does not support a finding that plaintiffs’ actions materially contributed to the delays *(see P.T. & L. Constr. Co. v State of New York,*179 AD2d 850 [1992]).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.