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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of audiohighway.com
for the nine months ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          16,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      548
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,174
<PP&E>                                             730
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,751
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,915
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,529
<SALES>                                          1,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,027
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,814
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,814
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,814
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.30)


</TABLE>
#### Bernard HOUSTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-15084.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

Bernard Houston, pro se.

Jessica Nicole Blonien, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

*307Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Bernard Houston appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Houston contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); *Roberts v. Hartley,*640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying *Cooke).*Because Houston raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Viola Carol, Respondent, v Madison Plaza Associates, LLC, Defendant, and Board of Directors of Madison Plaza Apartment Corp., Appellant. Viola Carol, Respondent, v Madison Plaza Associates, LLC, Appellant, and Board of Directors of Madison Plaza Apartment Corp., Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 261]-

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered July 8, 2011, which denied defendant Board of Directors of Madison Plaza Apartments Corp.’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it on the pleadings or by way of summary judgment; and separate order, same court and Justice, entered July 8, 2011, which denied defendant Madison Plaza Associates, LLC’s motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs cross motion to amend, unanimously reversed, on the law, *736without costs, the motions granted and the cross motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The breach of contract and reformation claims should have been dismissed as against the Board, since it was defendant Madison Plaza, the sponsor of the cooperative, not the Board, that entered into the purchase agreement with plaintiff, and Madison Plaza that was responsible for the complained-of amendments to the offering plan *(see Noise In The Attic Prods., Inc. v London Records,*10 AD3d 303, 307 [2004]). None of the allegations that support these claims assert any bad behavior on the part of the Board; indeed, the Board is not mentioned at all in the breach of contract claim. Moreover, plaintiff admits in her papers on appeal that the Board had nothing to do with the purchase agreement or with the amendments.

Plaintiff’s breach of contract and reformation claims as against Madison Plaza are barred by the statute of limitations *(Measom v Greenwich & Perry St. Hous. Corp.,*227 AD2d 312 [1996]). As such, her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and for attorneys’ fees as against the Board, which were both dependent upon a finding against Madison Plaza, are moot.

The fraud claim proposed by plaintiffs amended complaint is duplicative of the breach of contract claim, and thus fails *(see Financial Structures Ltd. v UBS AG,*77 AD3d 417, 419 [2010]). As such, amendment to include the fraud claim would be futile *(see “J. Doe No. 1” v CBS Broadcasting Inc.,*24 AD3d 215, 216 [2005] [denial of amendment appropriate where amended complaint “suffers from the same fatal deficiency as the original”]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Exhibit 99.2

                         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 New Jersey Mining Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Grant A. Brackebusch, Vice President of the Company, certify to
the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 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 result of operations
     of the Company.


/s/Grant A. Brackebusch
-------------------
Grant A. Brackebusch
Vice President
May 14, 2003
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Lev Nemchinovheadline bar Alfalfa Viriome


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO GABRIEL HERNANDEZMARTINEZ, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

 Respondent.

No. 20-71656 

Agency No. A206-673-212 

MEMORANDUM* 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 17, 2023**

 

Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Ricardo Gabriel Hernandez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks 

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying sua 

sponte reopening. We generally lack jurisdiction to review a decision not to reopen 

 * 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

FEB 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

proceedings sua sponte because it is “committed to agency discretion.” MenendezGonzalez v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2019). Although we may do so if 

the agency relies on an erroneous constitutional or legal premise, id. at 1116–17, 

Hernandez does not raise a constitutional challenge, and the BIA clearly exercised 

its discretion “against the correct legal background,” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 

588 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). We therefore dismiss the petition.

The BIA correctly recognized 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) as the source of its sua 

sponte reopening authority, identified “an exceptional situation” as a potential 

reason for sua sponte reopening, and cited precedent supporting its conclusion that 

Hernandez did not present such a situation. See In re G-D-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 

1133–34 (B.I.A. 1999); In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997). Nothing 

in the decision suggests that the BIA “erroneously believed that the law forbade it 

from exercising its discretion, or that exercising its discretion would be futile.” Lona 

v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1234 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up) (in the analogous context 

of a motion to reconsider). Instead, after consideration of the law and facts, the BIA 

concluded that Hernandez’s situation did not warrant an exercise of discretion.

Although Hernandez asserts that the BIA really denied reopening because he 

failed to establish the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal, our review “is 

constricted to legal or constitutional error that is apparent on the face of the BIA’s 

decision.” Id. We therefore do not speculate whether the BIA might have also 
3 

denied reopening on some other ground. Because the BIA’s decision denying sua

sponte reopening did not rely on an erroneous constitutional or legal premise, we

lack jurisdiction.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          28,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,638,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,966
<INVENTORY>                                  3,326,626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,394,343
<PP&E>                                       2,583,398
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,063,522)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,068,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,097,735
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,046,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,068,093
<SALES>                                      2,312,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,312,881
<CGS>                                        1,257,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,511,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (18,617)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (216,900)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (21,633)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (216,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (83,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (133,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6731

BRIAN DAVID STREBE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00704-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian David Strebe, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian David Strebe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court 

correctly determined that Strebe’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in 

substance a successive § 2254 petition. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 

397-99 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005) 

(explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized 

successive habeas corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that Strebe is not required to 

obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. See McRae, 793 

F.3d at 397-99. However, in the absence of prefiling authorization, the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) 

(2012). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2019328EN.01000402.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 May 2019 — Commerciale Gicap SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-417/19)

(2019/C 328/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commerciale Gicap SpA

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Are Article 1(1223) of Law No 296 of 27 December 2006 (now Article 16a(11) of Law No 11 of 4 February 2005) and the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 23 May 2007 compatible with EU law, with reference to Article 108(3) TFEU as interpreted in Deggendorf, Commission Decision C(2008) 380, and the Community-law principle of proportionality?

---
# C_2019164EN.01002702.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 28 February 2019 — H. A. v État belge

(Case C-194/19)

(2019/C 164/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. A.

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) (recast), considered alone or in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as requiring a national court, in order to guarantee the right to an effective remedy, to take into consideration, where appropriate, circumstances arising subsequent to a ‘Dublin transfer’ decision?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2003, (the Report) of The Hillman Companies, Inc. (the Registrant), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof; I, Max W.
Hillman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of
my knowledge, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                       
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                         
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Registrant.



| | /s/ Max W. Hillman
Name: Max W. Hillman
Date: August 14, 2003
| | -------------------------------------------------------------

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019213EN.01001801.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2019 — Milis Energy SpA v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-306/19)

(2019/C 213/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milis Energy SpA

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Question referred

Does EU law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as that set out in Article 26(2) and (3) of Decree-Law No 91/2014, as converted into law by Law No 116/2014, which significantly reduces or delays the payment of incentives already granted by law and defined on the basis of ad hoc agreements concluded by undertakings generating electrical energy by means of photovoltaic conversion with Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA, a public company responsible for that process? In particular, is such a provision of national law compatible with the general principles of EU law relating to legitimate expectations, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and effectiveness, with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with Directive 2009/28/EC (1) and the rules governing support schemes laid down therein, and with Article 216(2) TFEU, in particular in relation to the Energy Charter Treaty?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003, (the Report) of The Hillman Companies, Inc. (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof; I, James P. Waters, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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



| | /s/ James P. Waters
Name: James P. Waters
Date: November 12, 2003
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------