alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>          SEP-30-1998

<CASH>                        2,668,068 
<SECURITIES>                    249,985 
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,454,378 
<ALLOWANCES>                       0    
<INVENTORY>                        0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              4,372,431 
<PP&E>                        9,277,123 
<DEPRECIATION>                     0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               13,796,561 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        56,483,339 
<BONDS>                       1,618,304 
<COMMON>                           0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0    
<PREFERRED>                        0    
<OTHER-SE>                  (48,518,073)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 13,796,561 
<SALES>                       3,495,245 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,071,650 
<CGS>                              0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 3,551,277 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                654,470 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            3,616,852 
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (3,750,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (3,650,661)
<DISCONTINUED>                5,365,511 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0    
<CHANGES>                          0    
<NET-INCOME>                  1,714,850 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      4.93 
<EPS-DILUTED>                      4.93 

        


</TABLE>
Tyvarus Lee LINDSEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10377.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) No. 2:14 CR 119

)

ALDON PHILLIP PEREZ )

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY,

 ADJUDICATION OF GUILTY AND

CONFIRMATION OF SENTENCING HEARING

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

(DE # 16), to which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3), the Magistrate

Judge’s findings are now ADOPTED, defendant’s plea of guilty to the offense charged in

Count 1 of the Indictment is now hereby ACCEPTED, and defendant is adjudged guilty of

this offense. A sentencing date will be set under separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: June 19, 2015

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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**

          I, Xiao Ping Zhang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment to Quarterly Report of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.

| Dated:  January 31, 2006 |                      |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                          | /s/ Xiao   Ping Zhang     |
|                          |                           |
|                          | Xiao Ping   Zhang         |
|                          | Chief   Executive Officer |

----
EXHIBIT 32.2 - CFO 906 CERTIFICATION
           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 Annual Report of Red Giant Entertainments, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2012 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Benny
Powell, hereby 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) 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 operation of
          the Company.


Date: January 2, 2013                 /s/ Benny Powell
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Benny Powell
                                      Chief Financial Officer and
                                      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
<PAGE>   1


                                                               EXHIBIT 12.1



            INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
     COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
               DIVIDENDS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2001
                         AND 2000 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     2001           2000
                                                   --------       --------
                                                         (Unaudited)
<S>                                                <C>            <C>
Earnings:
Net Income                                         $119,134       $ 93,082
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes                       65,772         50,468
    Fixed charges                                   235,378        207,078
  Less:
    Capitalized interest                             14,869         11,399
                                                   --------       --------
  Earnings as adjusted (A)                         $405,415       $339,229
                                                   ========       ========

Preferred dividend requirements                    $  4,814       $  3,362
Ratio of income before provision
    for income taxes to net income                      155%           154%
                                                   --------       --------
  Preferred dividend factor on pretax
    basis                                          $  7,125       $  5,177
                                                   --------       --------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense                                  202,024        174,174
  Capitalized interest                               14,869         11,399
  Interest factor of rents                           18,485         21,505
                                                   --------       --------
  Fixed charges as adjusted (B)                     235,378        207,078
                                                   --------       --------

Fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividends (C)                                  $242,503       $212,255
                                                   ========       ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    (A) divided by (B)                                1.72x          1.64x
                                                   ========       ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    and preferred stock dividends
    (A) divided by (C)                                1.67x          1.60x
                                                   ========       ========
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

NYKAZA GEE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:15-CV-442-JVB-CAN

)

ERIC PARRISH and BRADY

JANOVITZ,

)

)

)

Defendants. )

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

Philip A. Gordon, Deputy Attorney General, requests the Court withdraw his

appearance as counsel for the Defendants, Eric Parrish and Brady Janovitz in this 

matter. He will no longer be employed by the Office of the Indiana Attorney General 

effective November 10, 2016.

Matthew K. Phillips, Deputy Attorney General, appears and remains as 

counsel for the Defendants in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indiana Attorney General 

Attorney No. 1958-98

Date: November 10, 2016 By: s/ Philip A. Gordon

Philip A. Gordon

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney No. 31321-49

OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

Indiana Government Center South

302 W. Washington St.

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

Phone: (317) 232-6217 Fax: (317) 232-7979

Email: Philip.Gordon@atg.in.gov 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 31 filed 11/10/16 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 10, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be 

sent to counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. 

I further certify that the document was mailed by United States Postal 

Service, first-class postage prepaid and properly addressed, to the following non 

CM/ECF participants:

Nykaza Gee

DOC # 127839

Indiana State Prison

One Park Row

Michigan City, IN 46360

s/Philip A. Gordon

Philip A. Gordon

Deputy Attorney General

OFFICE OF THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

Indiana Government Center South

302 W. Washington St.

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

Phone: (317) 232-6217

Fax: (317) 232-7979

Email: Philip.Gordon@atg.in.gov 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 31 filed 11/10/16 page 2 of 2
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00152-CR

WALLY SALDANA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

156th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-11-2183-0-CR-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 6, 2016
V 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1486 

For the relief of Candelaria P. Roxas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005 

Mr. HINOJOSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Candelaria P. Roxas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR 

4 CANDELARIA P. ROXAS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Candelaria P. Roxas shall be eligible for issuance of 

8 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 

9 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 

10 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 

11 under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status 

12 to lawful permanent resident. 
2 

•HR 1486 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Candelaria P. 

2 Roxas enters the United States before the filing deadline 

3 specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have 

4 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi5 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 

7 the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Candelaria P. Roxas, the Secretary of State shall 

16 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur17 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im18 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

19 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

20 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the 

21 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

22 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

23 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3 

•HR 1486 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Candelaria P. Roxas shall 

2 not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 

3 privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 

4 Act. 

Æ
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4276** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JAMIRE DONYE WHITE, a/k/a TJ , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cr - 00375

- FDW

- 3 )

Submitted : October 25, 2013 Decided: November 1, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, LAW OFFICE OF CHIEGE O. KALU OKWARA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jamire Donye White pled guilty to taking by force, violence, and intimidation, a bank card, from a person and presence of a nother, who was assaulted during commission of the offense and using same card to withdraw currency and aiding and abetting the same , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). He was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment . On appeal , he raises two sentencing issues, whether: (1) the district court properly imposed enhancements under th e Sentencing Guidelines and (2) his criminal history points were properly calculated. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We r eview sentences for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Miscalculation of the Guidelines range is a significant procedural error. Id. White alleges that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence in various ways under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2012). We review a district court ’ s factual finding s for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo

. United States v. Mehta , 594 F.3d 277, 281 (4th Cir. 2010). White disputes the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements finding that the property of a financial institution was taken, that a dangerous weapon was3 used to assault the victim, that the victim was physica lly restrained, and that White w as a n organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of the offense. We find no clear error in the district court’s application of these Guidelines enhancements

. In his second issue, White disputes some of his nineteen crimi nal history points. He concedes on appeal , however, that even if this court granted him relief regarding the disputed points, he would still have a criminal history category of VI, the highest category. Thus, any error by the district court w as harmless and this claim also fails. Accordingly, we affirm White’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AF FIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,910
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,651)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,150
<PP&E>                                         184,159
<DEPRECIATION>                               (114,703)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 368,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,342
<BONDS>                                            438
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           287
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   368,864
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,190
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,195
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AGUS INDA LU, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-70711 

Agency No. A088-121-759 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Agus Inda Lu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

 

* 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).

FILED

JAN 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70711 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for 

review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Lu established changed or 

extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Lu 

suffered in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 

F.3d at 1059-60 (petitioner failed to establish past persecution where he was beaten 

and robbed on two occasions and accosted by a mob); see also Halim v. Holder, 

590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner who was harassed, denied medical 

care, arrested and detained, and beaten by a mob did not establish past 

persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that 

even under a disfavored group analysis, Lu failed to show sufficient individualized 

risk of persecution to establish a well-founded fear. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-

79. Thus, Lu’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 

because Lu failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with 
3 14-70711 

the consent or acquiescence of the government of Indonesia. See Aden v. Holder, 

589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Sara ABRAM, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; Warren A. Lewis, INS District Director, Respondents.

No. 02-2318.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.

Decided May 14, 2004.

Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., Becker, Ha-deed, Kellogg & Berry, P.C., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Seadron, Assistant Director, Hillel R. Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Sara Abram, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

On appeal, Abram raises challenges to the immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Abram fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Abram’s request for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. *Chen v. U.S. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” INS *v. Cardoza-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Because Abram fails to show that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### John Robert ADAIR, Diljeet Singh Athwal, and John Spencer Emtage, Appellants, v. Paul J. CARTER and Leonard G. Presta, Appellees. John Robert Adair, Diljeet Singh Athwal, and John Spencer Emtage, Appellees, v. Paul J. Carter and Leonard G. Presta, Appellants.

Nos. 2011-1212, 2011-1213.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 6, 2011.

Doreen Yatko Trujillo, Kyle Vos Strache, Cozen O’Connor, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants.

Oliver R. Ashe Jr., Ashe, P.C., Reston, VA, Jeffrey P. Kushan, Rachel H. Townsend, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the cross-appellants’ unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of cross-appeal, 2011-1218, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 42(b),

It Is ORdered That:

The motion is granted. The revised caption in 2011-1212 is reflected above.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2011-1213.