alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERIS SHAWAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73427

Agency No. A076-705-945

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

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

Geris Shawan, a native and citizen of Israel, petitions for review of a Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. This court reviews de novo questions of

FILED

SEP 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73427

law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent

that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and

regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). This court

reviews factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d

1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Shawan’s claim that he faces a clear probability of persecution on

account of either his political opinion, see Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1164-

65 (9th Cir. 2009) (fear of harm was not on account of political opinion where

criminals were motivated to harm petitioner to retaliate for informing on them), or

his membership in a particular social group, see id. at 1166 (rejecting “government

informants” as a particular social group). Further, substantial evidence supports

the IJ’s determination that Shawan failed to demonstrate the Israeli government

would be unable or unwilling to control the individuals who threatened to harm

him. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, Shawan’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                                      29
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            5,972
<ALLOWANCES>                                               200
<INVENTORY>                                             16,423
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        23,959
<PP&E>                                                   6,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                           2,889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          30,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   10,908
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                    39
<OTHER-SE>                                              17,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            30,338
<SALES>                                                 45,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        45,461
<CGS>                                                   31,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           31,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         8,680
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          4,569
<INCOME-TAX>                                             1,688
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      2,881
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                             2,881
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0.73
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C. Section 1350





I,  William R. Green, Chief Executive Officer of Metaline Mining & Leasing Company, certify that:



1.

This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Metaline Mining& Leasing Company 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Metaline Mining & Leasing Company



Date: August 19, 2004

/s/ William R. Green

________________________________

William R. Green, Chief Executive Officer
No. 12-7363.

#### Johnson *v.*Orange County, Virginia, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-537.

#### McKay *v.*Chicago Transit Authority.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Tennessee Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Tennessee Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1.8   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 2.5    | 4.3    | 3.6    | 4.2    | 5.9    | 6.2    | 5.7    | 7.8    | 12.7   | 11.2  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 7.5    | 6.4    | 9.1    | 9.5    | 7.8    | 7.8    | 8.0    | 8.1    | 8.3    | 9.8   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 9.2    | 10.1   | 11.2   | 10.0   | 9.3    | 11.5   | 12.8   | 12.7   | 11.4   | 11.2  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 12.3   | 12.8   | 12.5   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
**Exhibit 15**

**LETTER RE: UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION**

November 2, 2007 

The Midland Company 

7000 Midland Boulevard 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

We have reviewed, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (UnitedStates), the unaudited interim financial information of The Midland Company and subsidiaries for the nine-month and three-month periods ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, as indicated in our report dated November 2, 2007; because we didnot perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the nine and three-month periods ended September 30, 2007, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-40560, 333-101390, and 333-133596 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-64821,333-109867, 333-115355, 333-115354, and 333-128492 on Form S-3. 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under theSecurities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Securities Act. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Cincinnati, Ohio
No. 12-5201.

#### John *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1470

To designate the United States Post Office Building located on Highway

90 in Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, as the ‘‘John Longo, Jr., Post

Office Building’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 20 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 7), 1993

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To designate the United States Post Office Building located

on Highway 90 in Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, as the

‘‘John Longo, Jr., Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress makes the following findings:

5 (1) John Longo, Jr., served as an alderman in

6 the city of Waveland, Mississippi, for a period of 11

7 years, and served as the mayor of the city from

8 1974 to 1990.
2

•S 1470 IS

1 (2) John Longo, Jr., during his long period of

2 public service, was instrumental in the extraordinary

3 growth of the city of Waveland, Mississippi, and was

4 the driving force behind the provision of many serv5 ices that were beneficial to the entire county of Han6 cock, Mississippi, including the establishment of

7 county-wide sewage treatment activity.

8 (3) John Longo, Jr., personally rearranged and

9 renumbered all of the postal delivery addresses with10 in the city of Waveland, Mississippi.

11 (4) The Mayor and the Board of Aldermen of

12 Waveland, Mississippi, have adopted a resolution re13 questing that the United States Post Office Building

14 located on Highway 90 in Bay Saint Louis, Mis15 sissippi, be named in honor of John Longo, Jr., as

16 a tribute to his 27 years of service to his community,

17 county, State, and Nation.

18 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF JOHN LONGO, JR., POST OFFICE

19 BUILDING.

20 The United States Post Office Building located on

21 Highway 90 in Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, is hereby

22 designated as the ‘‘John Longo, Jr., Post Office Build23 ing’’. Any reference to such building in a law, rule, map,

24 document, record, or other paper of the United States
3

•S 1470 IS

1 shall be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘John Longo,

2 Jr., Post Office Building’’.

Æ
008P17

#### Mina Kompani Hashemi v. Ali Reza Hashemi-Nejad

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA16-358)

2. Def’s *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Dismissed *ex mero motu*

2. Denied
No. 12-7215.

#### Holt *v.*Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

Certification of
Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 USC§1350,as adopted pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of TTI Team Telecom International Ltd. (the
Company) for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Meir
Lipshes, certify, pursuant to 18 USC §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                      |                               
|--------------------- | ------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Dated: March 31, 2008 | /s/ Meir Lipshes              
|                      | Meir Lipshes                  
|                      | Acting Chief Executive Officer



---

---
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





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Black Tusk Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2011 (the “Report”) that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





August 30, 2011/s/James BordianJames BordianChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3612EA

_____________

In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, #2458 * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

*

* [UNPUBLISHED]

_____________

 Submitted: March 12, 1998

Filed: March 23, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, ROSS, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

This appeal has been submitted on the briefs. Having considered the record and

the parties' submissions, we agree with the district court's analysis and conclude that

no error of law appears in the district court's order. We thus affirm for the reasons

stated in the district court's order without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1336

To increase the fee for the enforcement of the Tea Importation Act, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 30 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To increase the fee for the enforcement of the Tea

Importation Act, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FEE INCREASE.

4 The Tea Importation Act (21 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is

5 amended—

6 (1) by striking out sections 11 and 12,

7 (2) by inserting the fourth undesignated para8 graph under the center heading ‘‘FOOD AND DRUG

9 ADMINISTRATION’’ of title II of the Labor-Federal
2

S 1336 IS

1 Security Appropriation Act, 1942 (21 U.S.C. 46a)

2 as a new section 11 of the Tea Importation Act, and

3 (3) by amending such new section 11 to read as

4 follows:

5 ‘‘SEC. 11. No tea or merchandise described as tea

6 shall be examined for importation into the United States,

7 or released by the Customs Services, under the Tea Impor8 tation Act unless the importer or consignee of such tea

9 or merchandise has paid, before the examination, a fee in

10 an amount equal to—

11 ‘‘(1) 10 cents for each hundred weight or frac12 tion thereof of the tea or merchandise; or

13 ‘‘(2) the approximate cost of the examination,

14 whichever amount is less. Such fee shall be deposited

15 into the Treasury of the United States as mis16 cellaneous receipts.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0001025834
<NAME>                   SWISHER INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                             U.S. Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1.000
<CASH>                                               1,744
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       22,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,783
<INVENTORY>                                         54,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    83,127
<PP&E>                                              60,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     199,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               30,116
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               341
<OTHER-SE>                                          46,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       199,239
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   225,229
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      113,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       153
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     40,799
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16,006
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 24,793
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        24,793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.73




</TABLE>
No. 12-7280.

#### Orange *v.*LeBlanc, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

Ct. App. *1131La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13593]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------F
R-4915-00-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33567]


Albany & Eastern Railroad Company--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company

    Albany & Eastern Railroad Company (AERC), a noncarrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), and to operate 
17.40 miles of rail line between MP-14.50, at or near Lebanon, and MP-
31.90, at or near Foster, in Linn County, OR.<SUP>1</SUP> AERC also is 
acquiring incidental trackage rights over Union Pacific Railroad 
Company's (UP) rail line between MP-688.96, at or near Lebanon, and MP-
691.52, at or near Albany, and over BNSF's line between MP-0.0, at 
Albany, and MP-0.89, east of Albany, in Linn County, OR, a total of 
13.62 miles. The incidental trackage rights will permit AERC to 
interchange traffic with BNSF at its Albany yard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AERC will acquire the track, ties, and other improvements, 
and a permanent, irrevocable easement to operate on this line, but 
not the real estate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was expected to be consummated on or shortly after 
May 8, 1998.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33567, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must 
be served on Fritz R. Kahn, Suite 750 West, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20005-3934.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: May 14, 1998.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13593 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, A. F. Petrocelli, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Capital Corp., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) that:







1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  November 8, 2010By:
/s/ A. F. PetrocelliChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer