alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JUSTIN HALL

, Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 3570

[ October 20, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 from the Circuit Court for the

Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Elizabeth Anne Scherer

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13

- 15811 C F 10 A

.

Justin Hall

, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, C ONNER and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### D. Hartman Taber, Rec’r, App’lt, *v.*Samuel Jack *et al.,*Resp’ts.

See 35 N. Y. State Rep., 832.

*H. B. Cone,*for app’lt; *M. H. Peck,*for resp’ts.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                                  3,553
<SECURITIES>                                            4,577
<RECEIVABLES>                                           6,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                             7,211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       22,174
<PP&E>                                                  5,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         28,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   5,035
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    9
<OTHER-SE>                                             22,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           28,250
<SALES>                                                 9,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        9,702
<CGS>                                                   3,876
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           3,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        5,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           251
<INCOME-TAX>                                               11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       240
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                              240
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           $0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           $0.03
 
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.


By:      /s/ John F. Olmstead                         Dated: August 14, 2006
         --------------------
         John F. Olmstead
Title:   President and Director




                                       19
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ArthroCare
Corporation financial statements for the nine month period ended September 28,
1996 as shown in the 10-Q filing
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          12,067
<SECURITIES>                                    13,949
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,438
<PP&E>                                           1,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,599
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,783
<SALES>                                          4,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,139
<CGS>                                            3,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,408)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,410)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,410)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.67)
        

</TABLE>
#### Luis Francisco GAMEZ CASTELLANOS, AKA Luis Gamez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73089

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*502Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Bruce C. Wong, GW Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Edward C. Durant, Attorney, OIL, John Beadle Holt, 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, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges;

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Francisco Gamez Castellanos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the. Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gamez Castellanos failed to provide sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence to establish his continuous residence in the United States since February 13, 2001, which rendered him ineligible for TPS. *See*8 U.S.C, § 1254a(c)(l)(A)(ii); Designation of El Salvador Under Temporary Protected Status Program, 66 Fed. Reg. 14, 214 (Mar. 9, 2001).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gamez Castellanos’ request for an additional continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; *Ahmed,*569 F.3d at 1012 (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct and the number of continuances previously granted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 99.2  Press Release


February 28, 1997

                      For further information contact:
                      David M. Bradley
                      President & Chief Executive Officer
                      North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                      825 Central Avenue
                      Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                      515-576-7531


               NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. DECLARES DIVIDEND

Fort Dodge, Iowa -- David M. Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer of
North Central Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") announced today that the Company
declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.625 per share on the Company's
common stock for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 1997. The dividend will be
payable to all stockholders of record as of March 14, 1997 and will be paid on
April 7, 1997.

The Company's common stock trades on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol
"FFFD". The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank of
Fort Dodge, is a federally chartered savings bank headquartered in Fort Dodge,
Iowa.

                                       1
#### Henry Debbe, Respondent, *v.*Frederick Debbe, Appellant.

(Argued December 17, 1872;

decided December 24, 1872.)

Tins was a motion by appellant to dismiss appear upon *696affidavit that plaintiff had released the claim and acknowledged satisfaction of judgment below. The motion was resisted by plaintiff’s attorney, who claimed a lien for his costs, and that the alleged settlement was fraudulent, and made to deprive him of costs. The case presented no grounds for appeal, and it appeared plaintiff was in extreme poverty and almost an imbecile. The court granted the mótion upon payment of costs to respondent’s attorney to the time of motion, and ten dollars costs of opposing, with proviso that if the condition was not complied "with in twenty days these motions be denied, with ten dollars costs; the parties being remitted to the court below to. test the validity of the satisfaction piece.

*John U. Reynolds*for motion.

*Mr. Saokman*opposed.

Allen, J.,

reads opinion for dismissal on payment of costs, and ten dollars costs of motion; if not paid within twenty days, then for denial of motion with ten dollars costs.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.
#### Norman L. ADAMS, Jr.; Yuling S. Adams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mariella AGRUSA; Family 1st Investments, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56170

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Norman L. Adams, Jr., Pro Se

Yuling S. Adams, Pro Se

Mariella Agrusa, Pro Se

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Norman L. Adams, Jr. and Yuling S. Adams appeal pro se from the district *564court’s judgment following a bench trial and partial summary judgment in their action alleging copyright infringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. *Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co.,*827 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to defendant Agrusa’s innocent infringement because appellants failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Agrusa knew that her use of the photographs at issue constituted copyright infringement. *See Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp.,*263 F.3d 942, 957-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]illful refers to conduct that occurs with knowledge that the defendant’s conduct constitutes copyright infringement.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly concluded that Agrusa was liable for one count of copyright infringement because the photographs at issue were all part of the same marketing compilation for the subject residential property. *See*17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) (“[A]ll the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.”); *Columbia Pictures TV, Inc. v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc.,*269 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (to qualify as a separate independent work for purposes of copyright protection the material must have an independent economic value).

We are unable to consider appellants’ contentions regarding the district court’s conduct of the trial and evidentiary rulings during the trial because appellants failed to provide any portion of the trial transcript. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion.”); *Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade,*924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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



 Exhibit 10.1 
 [Letterhead of Las Vegas Sands Corp.] 
 March 1, 2012 

Robert G. Goldstein 
 Re: Terms
of Continued Employment 
 Dear Robert: 
 This letter agreement (“Agreement”) sets forth the terms and conditions of your continued employment with Las Vegas Sands Corp., a Nevada corporation (“LVSC”) and Las Vegas Sands, LLC,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of LVSC (together with LVSC, the “Company”), as mutually agreed upon by you and the Company. For valuable consideration and intending to be legally bound, the parties agree that Employment Agreement between you
and the Company effective January 1, 2011 (“Employment Agreement”) will remain in full force and effect subject to the following modifications: 
  

	 	1.	Term. The Initial Term of your employment in Section 5 of the Employment Agreement will continue until December 31, 2015. 


 

	 	2.	 2012 Restricted Stock Award. In addition, on the later of January 1, 2012 or the day after the last signature on this Agreement, (the
“Date of Grant”), you received a grant of equity in the form of three hundred and seventy-five thousand (375,000) shares of restricted stock under the Plan (the “2012 Restricted Stock Award”). Subject to your continued
employment through such date, except as otherwise provided in Section 12-16 of the Employment Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and the Company’s form of equity award agreement for its senior executives,
including pro-rated vesting of the 2012 Restricted Stock Award in the event 










	 	
of the termination of your employment during the 2013, 2014 or 2015 calendar years (a) by you due to a Change in Control or (b) due to your death or Disability, the 2012 Restricted
Stock Award shall vest as follows: twenty percent (20%) on December 31, 2013; twenty percent (20%) on December 31, 2014; and the remaining sixty percent (60%) on December 31, 2015. 


 

	 	3.	Business Travel. You shall be entitled to travel First Class on all Company business trips during the Term. In addition, you can utilize aircraft of the Company
or of its affiliates to/from Los Angeles or San Francisco in connecting to/from commercial airlines to/from Asia for business. 

  

	 	4.	Other Provisions Unchanged. The other provisions of the Employment Agreement are unchanged. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement and not defined are used as
defined in the Employment Agreement. 

 Enclosed are two copies of this Agreement. Please acknowledge your agreement with the
foregoing by signing both copies of this Agreement. Please return one signed and acknowledged copy of this Agreement and retain the second copy for your records. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Sheldon G. Adelson
	
	Sheldon G. Adelson
	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Las Vegas Sands Corp.
	Chairman and Treasurer, Las Vegas Sands, LLC


  

			
	Acknowledged and agreed,
	this 7th day of March, 2012
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert G. Goldstein

	Robert G. Goldstein


  
 2
#### Juan Manuel CERDA, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 14-60449 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 11, 2017

*771Raed 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

Jason Lloyd Wisecup, Kate Deboer Bal-aban, Esq., Trial Attorney, Jacob Alexander Bashyrov, Gary J. Newkirk, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Manuel Cerda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed from the United States. The IJ found that Cerda was deportable and that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because his prior assault conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1) was for a crime involving moral turpitude that made him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Because § 22.01(a)(1) proscribes some forms of assault that are not morally turpitudinous, the denial of Cerda’s cancellation of removal application rested on the modified categorical approach, which the IJ and BIA used to narrow his prior conviction by reference to state court documents in accordance with *Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder,*699 F.3d 821, 824-26 (5th Cir. 2012).

In *Gomez-Perez v. Lynch,*829 F.3d 323, 328 n.5 (5th Cir. 2016), we recently held that to the extent *Esparza-Rodriguez*treated § 22.01(a)(1) as divisible and thus amenable to the modified categorical analysis, it has been overruled by *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). The parties now agree that remand is warranted. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the decision of the BIA, and REMAND the case for further consideration of whether Cerda meets the other requirements to be considered for cancellation of removal, and if so, whether he is entitled to that relief as an exercise of the immigration court’s discretion.

*

 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 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED**

I, Christian L. Oberbeck, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Saratoga Investment Corp.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 20, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Victor J. Garity, Appellant.

Submitted January 3, 1944;

decided January 13, 1944

*826
      *Charles P. Sullivan, District Attorney (James F. T. Delaney*of counsel), for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to motion for enlargement of time.

*Victor J. Garity,*in person, for motion for enlargement of time and in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies as of right.

Motion for enlargement of time denied.