alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Yousif H. HALLOUM, Debtor. *466Yousif H. Halloum, Appellant, v. Michael G. Kasolas, Trustee, Appellee.

No. 14-60086

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Yousif H. Halloum, Pro Se

Michael C. Abel, Attorney, McNutt Law Group LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appel-lee

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yousif Halloum appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving a settlement agreement between Halloum’s chapter 7 trustee and his secured creditor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for clear error factual findings about mootness and de novo legal conclusions. *Rev Op Grp. v. ML Manager LLC (In re Mortgages Ltd.),*771 F.3d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Halloum’s appeal as moot because Halloum did not object to, or take an appeal from, the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing the sale of estate assets. *See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.),*677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing factors to be examined when determining equitable mootness). Halloum has permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur that it is inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal. *See id.*

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Halloum’s arguments regarding the underlying merits of the settlement agreement.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
American Wagering, Inc. Financial Data Schedule Required under: Appendix A to
Item 601(c) of Regulation S-B Commercial and Industrial Companies Article 5 of
Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,323,834
<SECURITIES>                                 1,121,435
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (54,511)
<INVENTORY>                                    520,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               444,721
<PP&E>                                       3,761,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,319,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,381,495
<BONDS>                                      1,908,799
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,408
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,950,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,319,668
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,968,781
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,872,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,021,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,021,858)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        


</TABLE>
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: April 6, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. F AA-20 15-0639 

Kenneth Ray Rumberger 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2015WP270015 

Respondent 

ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTI.ES TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING 

LITIGATION AND SCHEDULING ISSUES 

The above captioned case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on March 21, 2016. By 

order of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, any previously established date for a pre hearing 

conference or trial was suspended. Those dates are now vacated and there is a need to establish a 

new litigation schedule for this case. To .assist the undersigned judge, the parties should meet 

and confer to propose a mutually agreeable schedule. 

An administrative law judge may hold conferences to, among other things, "settle [or] 

simplify the issues by consent of the parties." 1 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(l) and (7), it is 

hereby ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall privately conduct an informal conference to meaningfully discuss 

litigation issues and proposed scheduling. 

2. The parties shall draft a joint report providing: 

a. any request to change the previously established venue, 

. b. a proposed schedule for the completion of discovery (or an indication that 

discovery is complete), 

c. a list of any pending motions that have been previously filed but have yet to be 

ruled upon, 

d. a proposed date for a telephonic prehearing conference with the undersigned 

judge, 

I 14 C.F.R. § 13.205. 
e. a proposed due date for the filing of any prehearing motions (including a 

proposed date for a telephonic hearing on any filed motions, if so desired), and 

f. proposed hearing dates. The parties should provide at least three alternative dates 

on which the hearing may be held that are acceptable to all parties. 

3. In addition to filing the report with the Federal Aviation Administration Hearing Docket 

Clerk in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 13.210, the parties shall submit the report to the 

undersigned judge at the Office of Hearings by fax, express carrier, or personal delivery 

no later than 30 calendar days after the date of service of this order. 

~L~A~S-M-. 

·~~ R_A_W_A_L_D ___ _ 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 

2 
:.11 

SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGlNAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

. Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Kenneth Ray Rumberger, Respondent 

2451 Church Lane, SPC 38 

San Pablo, CA 94806-5945 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7.6 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: . 3 1 0-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law .Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. (E 11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 · 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-2015-0639 

(Civil Penalty Action)
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-165927 on Form S-3 and No. 333-158232 and No. 333-128488 on Form S-8 of our report dated July 29, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of WPCS International Incorporated and Subsidiaries, which report expressed an unqualified opinion and appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of WPCS International incorporated and Subsidiaries for the year ended April 30, 2010.





By:
/s/ J.H. Cohn LLPJ.H. Cohn LLPEatontown, New Jersey

July 29, 2010
#### Lawrence R. DUNCAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23627.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 23, 1966.

*840R. Macey Taylor, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Macon L. Weaver, U. S. Atty., Melton L. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before JONES, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant originally appealed from the denial of two motions under 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255 and from the denial of a motion for the correction of a 15-year sentence imposed upon a conviction under both counts of an indictment which charged interstate transportation of stolen property in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314, and with unlawful flight in interstate commerce to avoid prosecution under state law in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1073. The conviction was on a plea of guilty. There was a general sentence of fifteen years. The maximum punishment under Section 2314 is ten years and the maximum penalty under Section 1073 is five years. The appellant, citing Benson v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 288, asserts that the general sentence is illegal and void. It is the view of this Court that the *Benson*case is not here controlling. There the general sentence imposed was less than the aggregate of the maximum which might have been imposed for conviction upon the several counts of the indictment. Here the sentence imposed is the same as the aggregate that might have been imposed on the several counts. It is therefore clear that the court imposed the maximum that might have been imposed and hence there is no error committed. The order of the district court is

Affirmed.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)
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 or §78o(d)); and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


****Date: February 17, 2005
By:
/s/ *Allen E. Kahn*Allen E. KahnChief Financial Officer





The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit 32.1Page 1 of 1 Page
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          22,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  962,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               985,007
<PP&E>                                          27,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,011,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,015,100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,855)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,011,803
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,195
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,855)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,855)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,855)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### Geo. F. Comstock, Pl'ff, v. The City of Syracuse *et al.,*Def’ts.

*Geo. F. Comstock*and *Chas. H. Peck,*for pl’ff; *C. L. Stone*and *Louis Marshall,*for def’ts.

Decided upon opinion in *Sweet*v. *City of Syracuse,*38 N. Y. State Rep., 933.

Reversing 38 N. Y. State Rep., 1021.
CHANGE	OWNER	T	
	ORDER	ARCHITECT	T	
	AIA DOCUMENT
      G701	CONTRACTOR  	T	  Austin/Houston
    Office
		FIELD	T	
		OTHER	T	  DL



	PROJECT:
(name,
      address)		Cirrus Logic, Inc
      -Corporate Headquarters
Building and Interior Finish-Out
800 W
      6th Street
Austin, Texas 78703	
      CHANGE ORDER
      NUMBER:
 
DATE:
	     	Interiors-002
 
01/23/2012
	 
	TO
      CONTRACTOR:
(Name, address)	     	D. E. HARVEY
      BUILDERS, INC.
DBA HARVEY-CLEARY BUILDERS
8107 SPRINGDALE ROAD, STE
      105
AUSTIN, TX 78724	CONTRACT
      DATE:
 
CONTRACT FOR:
 
 
PROJECT
    NO.	 	01/25/2011
 
Cirrus Logic
      Headquarters
Interiors
 
04-02747



Execution of this change order
indicates acknowledgement and incorporation of the following Contract
modifications: 

This change order will authorize Harvey-Cleary to release the remaining scopes of work pertaining to the
      Interior Finish-Out scope of work with the exception of Plastic Laminate Millwork and Architectural Millwork which are still subject to design
      change and re-pricing.

Scope of work pricing and
      clarifications are per the Exhibits referenced in Interiors C0-001.
      


	          	Interior Finish-Out
      Pricing with Accepted Alternates & VE per CO-001, Exhibit
“I”		$	8,008,757.00	
	 	Less Scope of Work Released in
      Interiors CO 001	(	$	3,735,674.00	)
		Less Plastic Laminate
      Millwork	(	$	183,512.00	)
		Less Architectural Millwork	(	$	794,064.00	)
		 
		Total authorized and
      released in this Change Order:		$	3,295,507.00	




	 
	Not valid until signed by the
      Owner, Architect and Contractor.
Signature of the Contractor indicates
      his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or
      Contract Time.
Signature of the Owner indicates his agreement herewith;
      The Interior Finish-out portion shall be a Stipulated Sum per the terms of
      the Contract.
	 



		The Original
      Interiors (Contract Sum) was	$     	0.00
		Net change by previously authorized
      Change Orders	$	3,735,674.00
	  	The (Contract Sum)
      prior to this Change Order was	$	3,735,674.00
		The (Contract Sum) will be
      (INCREASED) by
      this Change Order in the amount of	$	3,295,507.00
	 	The New Interiors
      (Contract Sum) including this Change Order will be	$	7,031,181.00
		 
		The Contract Time
      will be (increased)(decreased)(unchanged)		
		The date of Substantial Completion as
      of the date of this Change Order therefore is		June 20,
  2012



NOTE: This summary does not reflect
changes in the Contract Sum or Contract Time which have been authorized by
Construction Change Directive. 

	CONTRACTOR: 	Harvey-Cleary Builders	ARCHITECT: 	lauckgroup	OWNER: 	Cirrus Logic, Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Address	8107 Springdale Road, Suite 105
Austin, TX 78724	 	1801 Lavaca, Suite 108
Austin, TX 78701	 	2901 Via Fortuna Dr.
Austin, TX 78746
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	BY	 	BY	 	BY	 
		
      Dennet
      Wenske
 
 
		Mary Bledsoe		Thurman
Case



	DATE	DATE	DATE
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21.

                            TEAM HEALTH SUBSIDIARIES
                                (AS OF 01/01/04)

<Table>
<Caption>
NAME (STATE OF INCORPORATION)
-----------------------------
<S>  <C>
1.   TEAM HEALTH, INC. (TN)
     WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF TEAM HEALTH, INC.
2.   Access Nurse PM, Inc. (UT)
3.   After Hours Pediatrics, Inc. (FL)
4.   Charles L. Springfield, Inc. (CA)
5.   Clinic Management Services, Inc. (TN)
6.   Correctional Healthcare Advantage, Inc. (FL)
7.   Daniel & Yeager, Inc. (AL)
8.   Drs. Sheer, Ahearn & Associates, Inc. (FL)
9.   Emergency Coverage Corporation (TN)
10.  Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (NJ)
11.  Erie Shores Emergency Physicians, Inc. (OH)
12.  Greenbrier Emergency Physicians, Inc. (WV)
13.  Emergency Professional Services, Inc. (OH)
14.  Fischer Mangold, a California Partnership (CA)
15.  Health Care Alliance, Inc. (WV)
16.  Herschel Fischer, Inc. (CA)
17.  IMBS, Inc. (FL)
18.  InPhyNet Contracting Services, Inc. (FL)
19.  InPhyNet Hospital Services, Inc. (FL)
20.  InPhyNet South Broward, Inc. (FL)
21.  Karl G. Mangold, Inc. (CA)
22.  Kelly Medical Services Corporation (WV)
23.  Med: Assure Systems, Inc. (TN)
24.  Medical Management Resources, Inc. (FL)
25.  Medical Services, Inc. (WV)
26.  Metroamerican Radiology, Inc. (NC)
27.  Mt. Diablo Emergency Physicians, a California General
     Partnership (CA)
28.  Northwest Emergency Physicians, Incorporated (WA)
29.  Paragon Contracting Services, Inc. (FL)
30.  Paragon Healthcare Limited Partnership (FL)
31.  Paragon Imaging Consultants, Inc. (FL)
32.  Physician Integration Consulting Services, Inc. (CA)
33.  Quantum Plus, Inc. (CA)
34.  Reich, Seidelmann & Janicki Co. (OH)
35.  Rosendorf, Margulies, Boruschok & Schoenbaum Radiology
     Associates of Hollywood, Inc. (FL)
36.  Southeastern Emergency Physicians of Memphis, Inc. (TN)
37.  Southeastern Emergency Physicians, Inc. (TN)
38.  Spectrum Cruise Care, Inc. (DE)
39.  Spectrum Healthcare Nationwide, Inc. (DE)
40.  Spectrum Healthcare Resources of Delaware, Inc. (DE)
</Table>
<PAGE>

<Table>
<Caption>
NAME (STATE OF INCORPORATION)
-----------------------------
<S>  <C>
41.  Spectrum Healthcare Resources, Inc. (DE)
42.  Spectrum Healthcare Services, Inc. (DE)
43.  Spectrum Healthcare, Inc. (DE)
44.  Spectrum Primary Care of Delaware, Inc. (DE)
45.  Spectrum Primary Care, Inc. (DE)
46.  Team Anesthesia, Inc. (TN)
47.  Team Health Anesthesia Management Services, Inc. (CA)
48.  Team Health Billing Services, LP (TN)
49.  Team Health Financial Services, Inc. (TN)
50.  Team Health Southwest, LP (DE)
51.  Team Radiology, Inc. (NC)
52.  TH Contracting Midwest, LLC (MO)
53.  The Emergency Associates for Medicine, Inc. (FL)
</Table>
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.8
















CONSENT OF LOUIS GRENIER







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, Louis Grenier, participated in the preparation of the following technical reports:




-

“Technical Report and Recommendations, 2011 Exploration Program, Coulon Project, Quebec Mines Virginia Inc.”, completed in November 2011; and




-

“Technical Report and Recommendations, Reconnaissance and Trenching Program, Ashuanipi Project, Québec” completed in March 2012; 




concerning mineralized material in the Coulon and Ashuanipi properties (collectively the “Reports”) for the Company. Portions of the Reports are summarized, for the Coulon property, under the headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.1.4 Geological Setting; 3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.1.6 Mineralization”; and for the Ashuanipi property, under headings “3.6.4 Geological Setting; 3.6.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.6.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  Louis Grenier


	Name:  Louis Grenier, B.Sc., P.Geo.



















May 14, 2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ahmad R. HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1751

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 9, 2017

Filed: May 30, 2017

Tiffany Gulley Becker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Allison Hart Behrens, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sayler Anne Ault Fleming, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ahmad R. Hudson, Pro Se

Felicia Annette Jones, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robert Wolfrum, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ahmad Hudson pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court* concluded that Hudson’s base of*414fense level should be increased under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(3), because he had sustained a prior conviction for a “crime of violence.” The prior conviction was for unlawful use of a weapon under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4). The court then determined that Hudson’s advisory guideline range was 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment and sentenced him to a term of 70 months’ imprisonment.

Hudson appeals, arguing that the district court committed procedural error by counting his prior conviction as a crime of violence. In *United States v. Pulliam,*566 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2009), this court held that a conviction under § 571.030.1(4) is a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), because it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. “Crime of violence” under the guidelines also includes offenses that have such an element, *see*USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1), so *Pulliam*dictates that Hudson sustained a qualifying prior conviction.

Hudson asserts that intervening Supreme Court decisions have superseded the reasoning of *Pulliam,*and that we should conclude under current law that his prior conviction is not a crime of violence. We rejected the same argument in *United States v. Steven Hudson,*851 F.3d 807, 808-10 (8th Cir. 2017), and Hudson’s contention is foreclosed by this recent decision. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

*

 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.