alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Archie Raymond STREATOR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23664.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 1966.

*385Archie Raymond Streator, in pro. per.

Joseph W. Hatchett, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Middle District of Florida, for appellee.

Before RIVES, THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 involves an appeal from a denial of a motion to vacate the sentence on the ground that appellant was mentally incompetent to stand trial and, because of this incompetency, his waiver of counsel and subsequent plea of guilty were not intelligently or voluntarily made. The motion was denied without a hearing, and the failure to hold a hearing is the principal issue involved. The requirement of a hearing on such a petition depends on whether or not the allegations are valid and substantial and cannot be resolved from the motion, the files and prior records. A hearing would be mandatory if sufficient facts were alleged to support a claim for relief unless the motion, files and records conclusively show that the claim is without merit. See Nelms v. United States, 4 Cir. 1963, 318 F.2d 150, and Floyd v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 368 (decided September 2, 1966).

Appellant’s motion fails to allege any facts sufficient to indicate mental incompetence at the time of arraignment and sentencing. The trial judge who imposed the sentence was fully aware of the personal and criminal history of appellant and rendered his decision after carefully studying the transcripts of proceedings at arraignment and sentencing as well as the presentence report and file of the probation officer. The trial judge said:

> “Petitioner was extensively questioned about whether he desired counsel, about the facts of the crimes, and about the voluntariness and his understanding of the guilty pleas. Unlike the case of Johnson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 344 F.2d 401, nothing appears in the record that would raise the slightest doubt of petitioner’s mental competency.”

There is nothing in the record before us, or that was before the district judge, that would indicate any doubt about appellant’s mental competency. We believe the district judge carefully considered the matter, and that the petition is devoid of merit.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02

         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Homestore, Inc.:

     Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
report dated March 25, 2003, except as to Notes 13 and 21, as to which the date
is August 12, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Homestore,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003 also included an audit of the
financial statement schedule for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001,
listed in Item 15(a)(2) of this Form 10-K. In our opinion, this financial
statement schedule presents fairly, in all material respects, the information
set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated
financial statements.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 25, 2003
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 99

                     Press release, dated November 6, 1996


                 GA FINANCIAL, INC. ANNOUNCES STOCK REPURCHASE

Pittsburgh, PA.  GA Financial, Inc.  (AMEX:  GAF) today announced that it has
requested and received regulatory approval from the Office of Thrift Supervision
(OTS) to repurchase up to 5% or 445,000 shares of its outstanding common stock.
Under the repurchase program, the repurchases will be made in open-market
transactions, subject to the availability of stock, during the next six months.

John M. Kish, Chairman and CEO of GA Financial, Inc. commented, "We believe that
the repurchase program will enhance shareholder value, as such repurchases have
the effect of increasing the earnings per share and book value of the remaining
shares outstanding.  Our Board adopted this program because it represents a good
long-term investment opportunity for the Company due to the current market price
of the common stock."

GA Financial is the holding company of Great American Federal Savings and Loan
Association, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which operates through
its administrative/branch office in Whitehall and through ten other full service
branches and its one loan origination office located in and around Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.  The Association's deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation.

                      For More Information Contact:

                      John M. Kish
                      Chairman/CEO
                      Raymond G. Suchta
                      Chief Financial Officer
                      412-882-9946
                                                    412-882-8580 (FAX)
#### Roderick L. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel STONE; Robert Ambroselli, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15631

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 26, 2017

*720Roderick L. Mitchell, Pro Se

R. Lawrence Bragg, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Roderick L. Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the imposition of certain parole conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd.,*362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley,*360 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Dismissal of Roderick’s claim for monetary damages was proper because defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for the imposition of the challenged parole conditions. *See Thornton v. Brown,*757 F.3d 834, 840 (9th Cir. 2014) (parole officers are entitled to absolute immunity against claims for damages arising from imposition of parole conditions).

The district court properly dismissed Roderick’s claim for injunctive relief as moot because Roderick is no longer on parole subject to the challenged conditions. *See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles,*279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (“An actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition' is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Conference Call with**  **Environmental Groups on WQS Regulatory Revisions** 

**Logistics:** November 10, 2011; 2 pm - 4 pm (conference call) **Attendees:** Various environmental groups, including Clean Water Network, River Network, Gulf Restoration Network, Albert Ettinger (representing several organizations), Amigos Bravos (New Mexico), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and NRDC. EPA OST

– Grace Robiou, Manjali Vlcan, Ellen Gilinsky, Jeff Lape, Christina Christensen . **Topics Covered:**  1. Brie f Background/History 2. Summary

of proposed regulatory

revisions in six key

issue areas 3. Overview of schedule and next steps 4. Questions/Answers
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7016 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HARRY L. DANTZLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-01-331)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry L. Dantzler, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Barton, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Harry L. Dantzler appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to amend the complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See United States v. Dantzler, No. CR-01-331 (D.S.C.

June 24, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<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>                                          38,819
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,995
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    717,072
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         183,708
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           186,661
<LOANS>                                      1,323,407
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,390,417
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,608,862
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             52,335
<LONG-TERM>                                    511,076
<COMMON>                                        95,136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,390,417
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 25,383
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,426
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                12,270
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                39,079
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,944
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,564
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,515
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 17,371
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,650
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,650
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.43
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,868
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,090
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,024
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      536
<RECOVERIES>                                        38
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,026
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,026
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Susan E. Hough, PhD
United States Geological Survey 

### Induced Seismicity:

Knowns and Unknowns

This draft presentation is distributed solely for purposes of advance review. Its content is deliberative and predecisional , so it must not be reproduced or distributed further. Because the presentation has not been approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), it does not represent any official USGS finding or policy

### Earthquakes:
1RW-XVWD3&DOLIRUQLD3UREOHP ́

### 2011 Magnitude 5.8 Virginia Earthquake



## $100M

### Earthquakes Prior to 2009?

### Coincidence?Hough and Page, 2015

### What Causes Induced Earthquakes?Weingarten et al., Science 2015Theory 1. Magnitude limited by total injected volume7KHRU\6DPH3 Mmax  ́DVIRUQDWXUDOHDUWKTXDNHV

### Possible but not Likely

 Natural earthquakes: 1000 M3s Æ 1 M6

 Induced earthquakes: 8000

- 30,000 M3s Æ 1 M6

### What does this mean for hazard ?

### Hazard Depends on Shaking

### 6KDNLQJGHSHQGVRQ«

### But not all earthquakes with the VDPHPDJQLWXGHDUHFUHDWHGHTXDO«

### Induced earthquakes: less bang for the buck

Hough, 2014

### 8QOHVV\RXDUHULJKWRQWRSRIWKHP«

### W KDW¶VWKHERWWRPOLQH"1. Induced earthquakes are real

Walsh and Zoback

, Science Advances 20152 . Most induced earthquakes are small3. Potentially strong shaking near epicenter, lower shaking/hazard otherwise4. Infrequent larger events: unlikely but probably possible

### Hazard: 1% chance in 1 year
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02929]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, 
EPA gives notice of a public meeting of the National Advisory Council 
for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides 
advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental 
policy, technology, and management issues. NACEPT represents diverse 
interests from academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and 
local, State, and tribal governments.
    The purpose of this meeting is for NACEPT to discuss and approve 
draft recommendations in response to the National Academy of Sciences' 
report on ``Sustainability and the U.S. EPA.'' NACEPT's second letter 
on sustainability will address two topics: (1) What strengths EPA can 
leverage to successfully deploy sustainability practices across the 
Agency, and (2) what 3-5 year breakthrough objectives are related to 
sustainability implementation and recommended measurement systems for 
assessing progress toward EPA's sustainability vision. A copy of the 
agenda for the meeting will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ofacmo/nacept/cal-nacept.htm.

DATES: NACEPT will hold a two-day public meeting on Thursday, March 7, 
2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EST) and Friday, March 8, 2013, from 
8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (EST).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA East Building, 1201 
Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1117, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Joyce, Acting Designated Federal 
Officer, at joyce.mark@epa.gov, (202) 564-2130, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (1601M), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests to make oral comments or to provide 
written comments to NACEPT should be sent to Eugene Green at 
green.eugene@epa.gov by Thursday, February 28, 2013. The meeting is 
open to the public, with limited seating available on a first-come, 
first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend should 
contact Eugene Green at green.eugene@epa.gov or (202) 564-2432 by 
February 28, 2013.
    Meeting Access: Information regarding accessibility and/or 
accommodations for individuals with disabilities should be directed to 
Eugene Green at the email address or phone number listed above. To 
ensure adequate time for processing, please make requests for 
accommodations at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: January 29, 2013.
Mark Joyce,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-02929 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### City of Macon *et al. v.*Southern Oil Stores Inc. *et al.*

No. 13374.

July 9, 1940.

Rehearing denied July 23, 1940.

*E. W. Maynard*and *J. Ellsworth Hall Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Martin, Martin <& Snow,*contra.

Jenkins, Justice.

There being no material difference between the 1940 tax ordinance of the city, which levied a graduated tax on gasoline stations, “using in connection with such business twelve,” according to the storage capacity of such tanks measured by “cubic1 feet,” and the 1939 ordinance, which levied a tax on such stations in similar graduated amounts measured by the storage capacity of their tanks in terms of “gallons,” this case is controlled by the decision in *Southern Oil Stores Inc.*v. *Macon,*188 *Ga.*544 (4 S. E. 2d, 243), which we think is sound, wherein this court held that the 1939 ordinance was void as in contravention of the act of March 18, 1937 (Ga. L. 1937, pp. 167, 176; Code Ann. § 92-1403 (G)), imposing prescribed taxes on gasoline, kerosene, and other motor fuels, and expressly prohibiting municipalities from levying “any fee, license, privilege, or excise tax or taxes measured or computed in gallons upon the sale, purchase, storage, receipt, distribution, use, consumption, or other disposition of motor fuel,” etc. Since the effect of the present ordinance, just as was the case with the former ordinance, is to impose a graduated tax on the number of gallons of gasoline to be contained in the storage-tanks. (1728 cubic inches to cubic foot; 231 cubic inches to gallon) in violation of the terms of the act, the trial court properly so held, and' did not err in overruling the city’s demurrer to the petition of the gasoline dealers. The fact that the statute permits the imposition by municipalities of “reasonable *flat*license fees or taxes upon the business of selling motor fuel” only serves to make more clear, rather than to nullify, the explicit inhibition upon any tax by municipalities on the sale or storage of motor fuels computed in gallons. In other words, the- State has seen proper to claim for itself, to the exclusion of municipalities, the right to tax the sale or storage of motor fuels measured or computed in gallons, leaving to the municipalities the right to levy “reasonable flat license fees or taxes upon the business” of one so engaged, but without the right to graduate such business tax in so far as it may be in accordance with the number of gallons sold or in storage. This is true irrespective of whether the ordinance seeks to levy the graduated tax computed in gallons eo nomine, or in cubic inches which can mathematically be resolved into their equivalent measured in gallons.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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 Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Allen E. Kahn, 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:



(1)

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



(2)

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                         |     |                        
|------------------------ | --- | -----------------------
|Date:  November 18, 2008 | By: | /s/ ALLEN E. KAHN      
|                         |     | Allen E. Kahn          
|                         |     | Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Edofre Duriel PARRA-SALAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70226

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 18, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed October 25, 2017

Janet Elle Cox, Attorney, Janet Cox, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

OIL, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Edofre Duriel Parra-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Parra’s applications for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-1208.18. Parra also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand because of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. Parra’s briefing on appeal raises no arguments in support of his CAT claim. He therefore has waived this claim. *See United States v. Kama,*394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).

2. An applicant for withholding of removal must show that either the government or an entity that the government is unwilling or unable to control is the source of his persecution. *See Knezevic v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Parra did not establish that the Mexican government was unwilling or unable to protect him from persecution by drug cartel members. Parra waived review of this claim by failing to argue it in his opening brief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Even assuming that the issue was not waived, Parra has not met his burden of demonstrating that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

*7053. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Parra’s motion to remand. The BIA did not unreasonably conclude that Parra failed to make the prima facie showing of “legitimate and substantial” ineffective assistance, *Castillo-Perez v. INS,*212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th Cir. 2000), needed to excuse failure to comply with the procedural requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), *aff'd,*857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). Moreover, the evidence that Parra sought to introduce was not reasonably likely to affect the outcome of his withholding claim.1*See Matter of Coehlo,*20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992).

PETITION DENIED.

**

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

1

. We GRANT Parra’s request to submit a transcript of argument (Dkt. 42, 44).
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Charles T. Homewood, Deceased. Emma W. Eggert et al., Appellants; Frank P. Wolfe, Respondent.

Argued November 15, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*Marry M. Young*and *Frank J. Militello*for appellants.

*Gerald G. Gibbs*and *Anthony J. Rizzo*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs on the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding, within the meaning of the Constitution. No opinion.

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