alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Miguel Gomez LINARES, aka Miguel Gomez Linarez, aka Miguel Gomez Tenas, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72057

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Miguel Gomez Linarez, Paeoima, CA, pro se

Sheri Robyn Glaser, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Gomez Linares, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Coronado v. Holder,*759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in determining that Gomez Linares is ineligible for temporary protected status, where the record shows he was convicted in 2007 of a felony under California Health and Safety Code § 11350(a). *See*8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i) (alien who has committed a felony is not eligible for temporary protected status).

Gomez Linares’ contention that his conviction has been reduced to a misdemeanor is not supported by the record.

The agency did not err in determining that Gomez Linares would have been ineligible for relief under the Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”) had he been prosecuted in federal court, where, notwithstanding the later dismissal of his conviction under state law, the record shows he failed to abide by the terms of his grant of deferred entry of judgment. *See Estrada v. Holder,*560 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (“FFOA relief is not available when the person whose conviction is expunged has violated a condition of probation.”), *overruled on other grounds by Madrigal-*
      *430
      *Barcenas v. Lynch,*797 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2015).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
---

# Exhibit 99.2

# Statement of Chief Financial Officer of RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
 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 RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, W. Douglas Benn, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ W. Douglas Benn
-------------------
W. Douglas Benn
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9612-9613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03688]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-547-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.15.22 Negotiated Rates--
Castleton Commodities Merchant Trading L.P. R-4010-06 to be effective 
4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/15/22.
    Accession Number: 20220215-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-548-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.15.22 Negotiated Rates--
Direct Energy Business Marketing, LLC R-7465-08 to be effective 4/1/
2022.
    Filed Date: 2/15/22.
    Accession Number: 20220215-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-549-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.15.22 Negotiated Rates--
Direct Energy Business Marketing, LLC R-7465-02 to be effective 4/1/
2022.
    Filed Date: 2/15/22.
    Accession Number: 20220215-5049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-550-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

[[Page 9613]]

    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.15.22 Negotiated Rates--
Citadel Energy Marketing LLC R-7705-09 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/15/22.
    Accession Number: 20220215-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 15, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03688 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Roger A. Converse, Respondent, *v.*William H. Schmidlapp, Appellant.

Argued April 19, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*836
      *Walter H. Liebman*and *Herbert Robinson*for appellant.

*John F. Dooling, Jr.,*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
#### IN RE: D.C. DIAMOND CORPORATION, Debtor, Tomislav Milic, Creditor-Appellant, v. Kevin R. McCarthy, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee-Appellee, and Developers Surety and Indemnity Company, Creditor; Stewart Title Guaranty Co., Creditor, Transferee of Old Line Bank, Successor to The Washington Savings Bank, FSB, Creditors, and D.C. Diamond Corporation, Debtor, and Judy A, Robbins, 11, Trustee.

No. 16-2362

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Tomislav Milic, Appellant Pro Se.

Kevin R. McCarthy, MCCARTHY & WHITE, PLLC, McLean, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tomislav Milic appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for an expedited hearing on his objection to a sale that was previously approved by the bankruptcy court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the courts below. *Milic v. McCarthy,*Nos. 1:16-cv-01076-TSE-IDD, 12-16730-BFK (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 27, 2016; entered Oct. 28, 2016). 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*
#### Nicholas Bertini et al., Appellants, *v.*John R. Murray, Doing Business under the Name of John R. Murray & Son, et al., Respondents, and Knickerbocker Ice Company et al., Defendants.

Argued March 8, 1943;

decided April 22, 1943.

*759
      *Irving Lemov*for appellants.

*Crawford W. Hawkins*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond. JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 21.01 Subsidiaries of Homestore, Inc. State or Jurisdictionof Incorporation orFull Name of Entity
    
    
    Other Legal Names
    
    
    Legal Status of Entity
    
    
    Organization3041776 Nova Scotia
Company
    
    
    None
    
    
    Nova Scotia, Canada ULL
corporation
    
    
    Nova ScotiaA-Z Home Store Private
Limited
    
    
    None
    
    
    Delhi, India private limited
company
    
    
    Delhi, IndiaGTKY Printing & Mailing
Corp.
    
    
    None
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    New YorkHomeBuilder.com
(Delaware), Inc.
    
    
    None
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    DelawareHomestore Europe
Corporation
    
    
    None
    
    
    British Virgin Islands Co.
    
    
    British Virgin IslandsHomestore International
Limited (BVI)
    
    
    None
    
    
    British Virgin Islands Co.
    
    
    British Virgin IslandsHomestore Management
Company
    
    
    None
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    DelawareHomestore Sales
Company, Inc.
    
    
    Homestore Sales
Company, Inc.,
dba
Homestore Internet
Sales Company
(New
Hampshire only)
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    DelawareHomestore Sales
Company, Inc
dba RentNet
 Los Angeles County, CAHomestore Sales
Company, Inc
dba
Homestore.com
 Los Angeles County, CAHomestore Sales
Company, Inc.
dba
Homestore Apartments
and Rentals
 Los Angeles County, CAHSTPUS, Inc.
    
    
    None
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    DelawareImmoclick Online S.A.
    
    
    None
    
    
    Spanish Company
    
    
    SpainInteliQ, LLC
    
    
    None
    
    
    Limited Liability Corporation
    
    
    California




---



##### 



State or Jurisdictionof Incorporation orFull Name of Entity
    
    
    Other Legal Names
    
    
    Legal Status of Entity
    
    
    OrganizationMovedotcom (UK) Limited
    
    
    None
    
    
    England and Wales private
limited company
    
    
    EnglandNational New Homes Co.,
Inc.
    
    
    National New Homes Co.,
Inc., dba
Homebuilder.com
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    DelawareRealSelect, Inc.
    
    
    RealSelect, Inc., dba
REALTOR.com
 Los
Angeles County, CA
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    DelawareThe Enterprise of
America, Ltd.
    
    
    None
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    WisconsinThe Hessel Group, Inc.
    
    
    None
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    DelawareTop Producer Systems
Company
    
    
    None
    
    
    Nova Scotia, Canada ULL
corporation
    
    
    Nova ScotiaTouchTech Corporation
    
    
    None
    
    
    Ontario, Canada corporation
    
    
    OntarioVT Canada Inc.
    
    
    None
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    Ontario, CanadaWelcome Wagon
International Inc.
    
    
    None
    
    
    Corporation
    
    
    New York
 2
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 Blockbuster Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 4, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas M. Casey, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 3. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 15, 2010



/s/ Thomas M. CaseyThomas M. CaseyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel: Conflicting F and K Grant Applications of NRRC.                    

*Date:*                         March 4, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research, 6701 Democracy Boulevard Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ming Yan, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Immunology (IMM), DPPS, Center for Scientific Review, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4205, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-0343,                         *yanming@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 14, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03439 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3983

___________

Dianne Hercules, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

David Brown, Jr.; Jeff Childress; *

Robert H. Kelley, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2001

Filed: July 31, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dianne Hercules appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal without

prejudice of Hercules's complaint. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the

district court properly dismissed Hercules's complaint for failure to comply with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Without even attempting to explain her claim, Hercules

simply made reference to multiple attachments.

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             364
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,138
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,451
<INVENTORY>                                     12,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,566
<PP&E>                                           8,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,167
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,291
<SALES>                                         11,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,216
<CGS>                                            9,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,640
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   140
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,078)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,078)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)
        

</TABLE>
#### Lester MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1309

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 19, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Lester Moody, Appellant Pro Se. Elise Song Kurlander, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lester Moody appeals the district court’s order granting the Baltimore City Department of Social Services summary judgment on his claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1688 (2012); and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1)(i) (West 2014). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See Moody v. Baltimore City Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,*No. 1:16-cv-03706-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2017); *see also Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc.,*711 F.3d 401, 406 (4th Cir. 2013) (“An employee seeking redress for discrimination cannot file suit until [ ]he has exhausted the administrative process.”); *Resource Bankshares Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Inc. Co.,*407 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon ... mere allegations or denials ..., but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue *156for trial.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sonya Luella Leinani TUPOU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10340

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

SEPTEMBER 29, 2017

Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S., DOJ-Offlce of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Harlan Y. Kimura, Esquire, Harlan Y. Kimura, AAL, ALC, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sonya Luella Leinani Tupou appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams of more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846; attempt to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams of more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), (d)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

For the first time on appeal, Tupou contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the sentence and by failing to consider her mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Tupou’s arguments and thoroughly *419explained its reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Tupou next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Tupou’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32 - Chief Executive Officer and CFO Certification (Section 906)



                        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 AngioGenex, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  We,
Richard Salvador, Chief Executive Officer and Martin Murray, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

               (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.


/s/ Richard Salvador
---------------------------
    Richard Salvador
    Chief Executive Officer

Date  April 6, 2006
      -------------


/s/ Martin Murray
---------------------------
    Martin Murray
    Chief Financial Officer


Date  April 6, 2006
      -------------

<PAGE>