alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Everline Gesare NYABWARI, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60101 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 14, 2017

Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, Sheridan Gary Green, Sheridan Green Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Surell Brady, Trial Attorney, Tracie Nicole Jones, Esq., Trial Attorney, Lindsay M. Murphy, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Everline Gesare Nyabwari petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her time-barred and numbers-barred motion to reopen based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Nyabwari contended that prior counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the admissibility of 1-9 forms in her removal proceedings. The BIA denied Nyabwari’s motion to reopen based on its decision in *Matter of Bett,*26 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2014), in which the BIA held that 1-9 forms are admissible in immigration proceedings to determine an alien’s eligibility for relief from removal.

Motions to reopen are disfavored. *Lara v. Trominski,*216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). The ruling will stand even if this court concludes that it is erroneous, “so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary. *350rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” *Id.*at 304.

Under this court’s “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,” Nyabwari has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. *See id.*at 303-04. The decision in *Matter of Bett,*26 I. & N. Dec. at 440-43, undermines any argument that- Nyabwari was substantially prejudiced by counsel’s failure to challenge the admissibility of the 1-9 forms on appeal, and it indicates that counsel was not deficient for pursuing a futile line of argument. We discern no abuse of discretion given the BIA’s established position that 1-9 forms are admissible in removal proceedings to determine eligibility for relief from removal.

Nyabwari’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5,4.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.3.1

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                               LOGISTICS.COM, INC.
                          2001 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN

         WHEREAS, on January 2, 2003, Logistics.com, Inc. changed its name to
LGO Corporation;

         WHEREAS, LGO Corporation (the "Company") maintains the Logistics.com,
Inc. 2001 Equity Compensation Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of its and its
parents and subsidiaries eligible employees, certain advisors and consultants
who perform services for the Company and its parents and subsidiaries, and
non-employee members of the Company's Board of Directors;

         WHEREAS, the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") desires to
change the name of the Plan, and all references in the Plan, to reflect the
change in the name of the Company;

         WHEREAS, the Board also desires to amend the Plan to provide that the
Internet Capital Group, Inc. Board of Directors will have authority to take all
actions that the Board has under the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, Section 17(a) of the Plan provides that the Board may amend
the Plan at any time.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the foregoing, effective January 23,
2003, the Plan shall be amended as follows:

         1.       The Plan shall be renamed as the LGO Corporation 2001 Equity
Compensation Plan.

         2.       Except as provided in item 3 below, all references in the Plan
to "Logistics.com, Inc." shall be changed to "LGO Corporation".

         3.       All references in the Plan to the "Logistics.com, Inc. Board
of Directors" shall be changed to the "Internet Capital Group, Inc. Board of
Directors".

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of Amendment No. 1
set forth herein, the Board has caused this Amendment to be executed this 23rd
day of January, 2003.

                                             LGO CORPORATION

                                             BY: /s/ R. Kirk Morgan
                                                 ------------------
                                             NAME:  R. Kirk Morgan
                                             TITLE: Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         388,463
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,400,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                   254,796
<INVENTORY>                                  2,217,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,928,173
<PP&E>                                       3,618,746
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,150,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,901,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,644,289
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,855
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,678,827)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,901,037
<SALES>                                      2,572,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,472,016
<CGS>                                        1,602,623
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,493,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,704,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               236,109
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             836,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,561,798)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       964
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,725,601)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,562,762)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.42)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statements of operations of the Company as of and for the quarter
ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         181,870
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,465,973
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,917
<INVENTORY>                                  1,727,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,446,377
<PP&E>                                       3,421,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 718,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,626,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,477,188
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,746
<OTHER-SE>                                   (485,135)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,626,593
<SALES>                                      1,367,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,709,834
<CGS>                                          676,143
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,265,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,316,616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                23,593
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             214,476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,086,677)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,086,677)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,086,677)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements dated March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements. Amounts are based on
conversion rate of 1,791 lire to the dollar which prevailed at March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,552,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,218,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,131,000
<INVENTORY>                                 20,627,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,563,000
<PP&E>                                      24,223,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,856,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,605,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       43,787,000
<BONDS>                                      1,673,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     755,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,605,000
<SALES>                                      9,812,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,812,000
<CGS>                                        9,742,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,192,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,450,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             594,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,939,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,961,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,961,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)


</TABLE>
1020.06104
#### ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. *v.*SAMUEL P. SORENSEN ET AL.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15815.

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn. App. 721 (AC 16187), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s summary judgment?”

*945
      *Abraham I. Gordon*and *Ronald D. Japha,*in support of the petition.

*Beecher A. Larson,*in opposition.

Decided November 6, 1997
#### Harry Rader, Respondent, *v.*Maurice Simmons, Individually and as Property Clerk of the Police Department of the City of New York, Appellant.

Submitted March 1, 1943;

decided March 11, 1943.

*669
      *Arthur Morris*and *Morris Okoshken*for motion.

*Thomas D. Thacher, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), opposed.

Motion denied with ten dollars costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          3,481
<SECURITIES>                                   21,685
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,561
<INVENTORY>                                    18,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               69,304
<PP&E>                                        175,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                 75,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                208,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          39,729
<BONDS>                                       127,800
<COMMON>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  208,896
<SALES>                                        64,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               64,907
<CGS>                                          54,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  61,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   211
<INCOME-TAX>                                      994
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,205
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,205
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        



</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Wilson , 2012-Ohio-2890.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v.

DONTE L. WILSON Appellant C.A. No. 26238

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2010-09-2537

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: June 27, 2012

WHITMORE, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Donte Wilson, app eals from his conviction in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction.

I {¶2} On December 16, 2010, Wilson pleaded guilty to failure to notify of a change of address, in violation of R.C. 2950.05. On Febr uary 1, 2011, the court journalized its entry sentencing Wilson to a four year prison term, which it suspended, and tw o years of community control. In August 2011, Wilson was charged with violating his community control. Before the violation hearing was held, Wilson filed a mo tion to withdraw his December 2010 guilty plea

and to dismiss his indictment. On November 7, 2011, the court denied his motions. Wilson did not appeal. On November 29, 2011, Wilson plead ed no contest to the community control violation, and the court found him guilty. On December 28, 2011, Wilson filed his notice of appeal. He raises one assignment of error for our review.2

II Assignment of Error THE COURT ERRORED (sic) WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA[.] {¶3} In his sole assignment of error, Wilson ar gues that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We do not re ach the merits of Wilson’s assignment of error because his appeal is untimely. {¶4} The trial court denied Wilson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on November 7, 2011. That denial was a final appealable order. State v. Kerns , 9th Dist. No. 11CA0051-M, 2011-Ohio-6788, ¶ 7; State v. Damron , 4th Dist. No. 10CA3375, 2011-Ohio-165, ¶ 7; State v.

Kramer , 10th Dist. No. 03AP-633, 2004-Ohio-2646, ¶ 8. {¶5} Wilson had 30 days after November 7, 2011, to file his notice of appeal. See App.R. 4(A). Wilson, however, did not file his notice of appeal until December 28, 2011. Because Wilson’s notice is untimely, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

III {¶6} Wilson’s appeal is dismissed as untimely.

Appeal dismissed.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22 (C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is3

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

BETH WHITMORE FOR THE COURT

MOORE, J. BELFANCE, J. CONCUR

APPEARANCES: RHONDA L. KOTNIK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11251 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 19, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Garcia, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent John Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Garcia’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

*370We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2, Garcia’s motion to substitute counsel is DENIED. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 99.1


               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         The undersigned, Robert C. White, is the President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company").

         This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Report").

         By execution of this statement, I certify that:

             A)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

             B)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  covered by the Report.

         This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report
so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

 Dated:  December 24, 2002                         /s/ Robert C. White
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Robert C. White
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Lorna E. Nagler, ChiefExecutive Officer of Christopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”)certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended May 30, 2009 as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: July 9, 2009 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    | By:    | /s/ Lorna E. Nagler |
|                    |   | Lorna E. Nagler |
|                    |   | *President and Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION S

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 4

- 0 0 361

- C R

Style: Blake Anthony M on akino v. The State of Texas

Date motion s filed * : June 14 and 1 5 , 201 6

Type of motion s : Letter

- M otion s to Remand and to Withdraw Appellate Attorney

Part y filing motion s : Pro Se Appell ant

Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No

.

Ordered that motion s are :

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

Because appellant is represented by counsel, his pro se letter

- motions to remand to the

trial court for time served, filed on June 14, 2016, and to withdraw his appellate

attorney, filed on June 15, 2016, are D ISMISSED as moot

. See Scheanette v. State

, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (no entitlement to hybrid

representation). Appellant is directed to communicate directly with his counsel,

Melissa Martin

.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually

Date: June 28, 2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HANIFASIM SAEED,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 14 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of June, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Cyrus Griswold, Respondent, *v.*Elbert W. Cook, Appellant.

(Argued September 26, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Decided upon the facts in the ease.

*John O. Strong*for the appellant.

*A. P. Nichols*for the respondent.

Hunt, C., reads for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed, with costs.