alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                              ROBBINS & MYERS, INC.
                              ---------------------

                            LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY
                            -------------------------

                  WHEREAS, Robbins & Myers, Inc. (the "Company") intends to file
with the Securities and Exchange Commission its Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended August 31, 2002:

                  NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned in his capacity as a
director of the Company hereby appoints Gerald L. Connelly his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
to execute in his name, place and stead, the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended August 31, 2002, (including any amendment to such
report) and any and all other instruments necessary or incidental in connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Said attorney shall have full power and authority to do and perform in the name
and on behalf of the undersigned, in the aforesaid capacity, every act
whatsoever necessary or desirable to be done, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person. The undersigned hereby
ratifies and approves the act of said attorney.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
instrument this 19th day of November, 2002.

                                  /s/ Maynard H. Murch, IV
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Maynard H. Murch, IV

                                  /s/ Robert J. Kegerreis
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Robert J. Kegerreis

                                  /s/ Thomas P. Loftis
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Thomas P. Loftis

                                  /s/ William D. Manning
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  William D. Manning

                                  /s/ Jerome F. Tatar
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Jerome F. Tatar

                                  /s/John N. Taylor, Jr.
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  John N. Taylor, Jr.


71
**Exhibit12.01****ROHM ANDHASS COMPANY****COMPUTATIONOF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                              **2006** **2005** **2004** **2003** **2002**Earnings (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes **$**1,042  **$**868  **$**698  **$**397  $291 Fixed charges  126   149   162   161   168 Capitalized interest adjustment  4   6   5   (3)  (6)Undistributed earnings adjustment  (10)  (9)  (6)  (7)  (7)     Earnings  1,162   1,014   859   548   446      Ratio of earnings to fixed charges  9.2   6.8   5.3   3.4   2.7      Note:   Earnings consist of earnings before income taxes and fixed chargesafter eliminating undistributed earnings of affiliates andcapitalized interest net of amortization of previously capitalizedinterest. Fixed charges consist of interest expense, includingcapitalized interest, and amortization of debt discount and expenseon all indebtedness, plus one-third of rent expense deemed torepresent an interest factor.
#### Hubbard v. Mellion

108,461

12/27/13

Denied

48 Kan. App. 2d 1005
#### *In re*S.R.C.

108,503

06/05/13

Denied.

Unpublished
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-16179

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:02-cr-00006-MTT-CHW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MEDRU MARCUS, 

a.k.a. Zeke, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(August 26, 2013)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-16179 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Medru Marcus, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion to reduce 

his sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582, under Amendment 750 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines. Marcus argues that, under Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. __, 131 

S. Ct. 2685 (2011), his sentence was “based on” a sentencing range that has been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission and that he is subject to the new 

mandatory penalties under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. We affirm.

The district court correctly denied Marcus’s motion. Marcus was sentenced 

as a career offender, and Amendment 750 did not alter his sentencing range. See

United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.), cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 

568 (2012). And because the Fair Sentencing Act is not an amendment to the 

Guidelines, the Act cannot serve as a basis for a sentence reduction under section 

3582(a)(2). See United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir. 2012). Even 

if we were to assume that Marcus could base his motion on the Fair Sentencing 

Act, his motion would fail because he was sentenced before the effective date of 

the Act. See United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 542 (11th Cir. 2013). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-16179 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 2 of 2
No. 12-157.

#### Amaechi *v.*University of Kentucky et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LUIS HERNANDEZ

- ESPINOZA, a/k/a Raphael Lopez, a/k/a Rafael Lopez , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 7:09

- cr - 00112

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : January 19, 2021 Decided: January 22, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Luis Hernandez

- Espinoza, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Luis Hernandez

- Espinoza appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 4 04, 132 Stat. 5194 , 5222

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hernandez

- Espinoza , No. 7 :0 9

- cr - 00 11 2

- D

- 1 (E.D.N.C. July 1, 2020)

. We dispense wit h 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALANO SALOMON-CABALLERO,

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71216

Agency No. A201-028-153

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2021** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, MILLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Salano Salomon-Caballero, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks

review of the immigration judge’s (IJ) adverse determination following a

FILED

MAR 12 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
reasonable fear interview. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).1

Reviewing for substantial evidence, that is, whether "any reasonable adjudicator

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary," Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828

F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted), we deny the

petition. 

1. The IJ found "insufficient nexus." He reasonably could conclude that a

group of masked, armed men targeted Petitioner and his family because they

wanted to take profit from fertile land, rather than to persecute them on account of

membership in the proposed social group of male Mexican landowners. 

"[L]andownership may be the basis of a particular social group." Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013). But merely owning land and being

threatened is insufficient; one must show that a persecutor’s desire to harm a

particular social group was at least "a reason" for the persecution. See

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that an

applicant for withholding of removal must show that a protected ground was "a

reason" for his persecution). Generally speaking, an applicant’s "desire to be free

1

 The petition is not moot following Petitioner’s removal to Mexico,

because granting the petition would "at least increase [Petitioner’s] chances of

being allowed" to return to the United States. Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch, 823

F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). 

2
from harassment by criminals motivated by theft . . . bears no nexus to a protected

ground." Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). 

On this record, we are not compelled to disagree with the IJ’s conclusion

that Petitioner’s attackers were motivated by pecuniary gain, rather than by

hostility to male Mexican landowners. Petitioner, for instance, suggested that the

men may have coveted his good crops, his shops, or even his car. 

2. To the extent that Petitioner seeks review of the IJ’s denial of protection

under the Convention Against Torture, he forfeited that argument. See Tijani v.

Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that this court "generally will

not take up arguments not raised in an alien’s opening brief before this court"). 

PETITION DENIED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages 3 and 4
of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in
its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
Exhibits
**Exhibit 23.4**
**Consent of Independent PublicAccountants**We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-7410, 333-7412, 333-11022, 333-13384, 333-102183and 333-97935) of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company of our reportdated May 22, 2004, relating to the Financial Statements ofRoyal Dutch Petroleum Company which is included in this 2003Annual Report on Form 20-F.
/s/ KPMG Accountants N.V.--------------------------------------
**KPMG Accountants N.V.****The Hague**
June 25, 2004 **E 6 **RoyalDutch/Shell Group of Companies
Exhibits
**Exhibit 23.5**
**Consent of Independent PublicAccountants**We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-7410, 333-7412, 333-11022, 333-13384, 333-102183and 333-97935) of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company of our reportdated May 22, 2004, relating to the Financial Statements ofthe Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies which is included inthis 2003 Annual Report on Form 20-F.
**/s/ KPMG Accountants N.V.****------------------------------------------**
**KPMG Accountants N.V.****The Hague**
**/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP****------------------------------------------**
**PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP****London**
June 25, 2004 Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies **E7**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7188

SYLVESTER A. RICHARDSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID ROBINSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:06-cv-00171-JRS)

Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 20, 2006 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvester A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sylvester A. Richardson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) petition for failure to pay the partial filing fee. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Richardson’s

motion to consolidate. 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. 

DISMISSED
[Cite as In re G.B.M. , 2018-Ohio-4475.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE MATTER OF: : MEMORANDUM OPINION G.B.M., DELINQUENT CHILD : : CASE NO. 2018-L-099

:

:

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 2017 DL 01076. Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Paines ville, OH 44077 (For Appellee). Karen L. Hummel, 30432 Euclid Avenue, #101, Wickliffe, OH 44092 (For Appellant).

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. {¶1} On August 8, 2018, appellant, G.B.M., by and through counsel, filed a notice of appeal from a July 5, 2018 entry of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, ordering that the juvenile’s driver’s license is suspended pending full payment of court costs, fines, and fees. {¶2} A timely notice of appeal was due to be filed by August 6, 2018, which was not a holiday or a weekend. Thus, the appeal is untimely filed by two days. {¶3} App.R. 4(A)(1) states in relevant part: {¶4} “* * * [a] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.”2 {¶5} App.R. 5(A) states: {¶6} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of righ t, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: {¶7} “(a) Criminal proceedings; {¶8} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and {¶9} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. {¶10} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. * * *.” {¶11} In the present case, appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule set forth in App.R. 4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. {¶12} Appellant has a remedy to file an untimely appeal of a judgment from a delinquency proceeding under App.R. 5(A). {¶13} Based on the foregoing, this appeal is hereby sua sponte dismissed as being untimely. {¶14} Appeal dismissed.

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.,

concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9291]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-183-002]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Filing of Tariff 
Sheets

April 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 1, 1997, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing, as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 the tariff sheets listed on Appendix 
A to the filing, with an effective date of June 1, 1997.
    Texas Gas states that the instant filing is in compliance with the 
Commission's Order issued February 14, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-183-000 
in response to the pro forma tariff sheets previously filed to 
implement the business standards issued by the Gas Industry Standards 
Board (GISB) which were incorporated by the Commission in Order No. 
587. The tariff sheets reflect those revisions directed by the February 
14, 1997, Order and also incorporate by reference into the tariff the 
Electronic Delivery Mechanism Standards adopted by Order No. 587-B. As 
directed, the filing is being made sixty (60) days in advance of the 
June 1, 1997, effective date for Texas Gas to implement GISB Standards.
    Texas Gas states that copies of the tariff sheets are being served 
upon Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state 
commissions, as well as all parties on the Commission's official 
service list in this docket.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
on or before April 21, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9291 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Table 3.5

# RSE 3.5
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 64 (Thursday, April 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 15880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8452]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License; Concord 
Circuits

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Concord Circuits, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive 
license in the United States to practice the Government owned invention 
described in U.S. Patent No. 5,274,775 entitled ``Process Control 
Apparatus for Executing Program Instructions,'' filed January 22, 1991.
    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has 60 days 
from the date of this notice to file written objections along with 
supporting evidence, if any. Written objections are to be filed with 
the Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 North 
Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. R. J. Erickson, Staff Patent 
Attorney, Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 
North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, telephone (703) 
696-4001.

    Dated: March 24, 1997.
M. A. Waters,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Alternate Federal Register Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-8452 Filed 4-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9154]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Discretionary Cooperative Agreements to Support the Air Bag 
Safety Campaign

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Extension of the due date for submission of applications in 
response to agency announcement published February 19, 1997, 62 FR 
7495. Reference DTNH22-97-H-05090.

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

SUMMARY: Due to lack of sufficient response from the necessary number 
of national organizations as a result of the original announcement, the 
decision has been made to extend the due date for submission of 
applications from March 21, 1997 to April 21, 1997. Those applicants 
which met the original due date are also given the opportunity to 
utilize the additional time to refine/revise and resubmit their 
applications if they so desire.
    Your attention is drawn to the Eligibility Requirements in the 
original announcement wherein it states that in order to be eligible to 
participate in this program, you must be a national nonprofit 
organization which: (1) Has an established membership structure with 
regional, state or local chapters throughout the country having a 
mechanism for disseminating and coordinating project efforts at the 
local level; and, (2) have in place a schedule of regular/national/
regional or state conferences or conventions, and one or more 
communication mechanisms that can be used for motivating members and 
other constituents to become involved in occupant protection at the 
state and local level.

    Dated: April 1, 1997.
James H. Hedlund,
Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs.
[FR Doc. 97-9154 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M