alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO RENE DE JESUS-SANCHEZ, AKA Sergio De Jesus Sanchez, AKA Sergio Sanchez, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 13-71955 Agency No. A201-034-208
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 16, 2015 ** San Francisco California Before: NOONAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District Judge. *** 

# FILED
JAN 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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). *** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.Sergio Rene De Jesus-Sanchez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss in part and deny in part. We lack jurisdiction to review an order of removal against an alien removable for having committed an aggrav ated felony, except over constitutional or legal claims or when denial of relief is on the merits of the claim. U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Perez-Palafox v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2014). To the extent De Jesus-Sanchez dis putes the weight given to each piece of evidence about the loaded gun and the non-viol ent nature of his crime, we dismiss his challenge to the BIA’s conclusion th at he committed a particularly serious crime and was ineligible for withholding ofremoval. To the extent De JesusSanchez raises legal challenges to the BIA’s conclusion, his claims lack merit. The BIA relied on reliable evidence and considered relevant factors. We have jurisdiction to review the BI A’s denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture because it was a decision on the merits. See Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey , 518 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial. Although De Jesus-Sanchez presented evidence that he is at risk of being a ttacked upon return to Mexico, this evidence did not compel a finding that he more likely than not would be tortured. Further,
2the evidence did not suggest De Jesus-Sanc hez would be tortured “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.” See Kalmathas v. INS , 251 F.3d 1279, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2001). Petition DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3
#### TYLER, Respondent, v. STANDARD WINE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 9, 1907.)

Action by James R. Tyler against the Standard Wine Company.

No opinion. Judgment (102 N. Y. Supp. 65) affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
the Company for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Peter L. Vosotas
__________________________________
Peter L. Vosotas
Chief Executive Officer
June 29, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Rudolph Gross, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered April 13,1983, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient, particularly in view of the unreliability of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, a rational trier of fact could have found, as did the jury at bar, that the People proved every essential element of the crimes *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*_ US _, 105 S Ct 327; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620; *People v Piro,*106 AD2d 667). As we have noted, “[t]he resolution of questions relating to the credibility of witnesses is properly a function of the jury and * * * may not be overturned lightly on appeal” *(People v Rodriguez,*72 AD2d 571; *see also, People v Bigelow,*106 AD2d 448).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               609,686
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 609,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,891
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   609,686
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,062
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,998
<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>                                  (16,936)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 Radiologix, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sami S. Abbasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ SAMI S. ABBASI                                  
|Sami S. Abbasi President and Chief Executive
Officer

Dated: August 8, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Radiologix, Inc. and will be retained by Radiologix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2020371EN.01001302.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/13

---

Order of the General Court of 3 August 2020 — Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO — Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)

(Case T-604/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Renunciation of the EU designation under an international registration - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 371/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Inova Semiconductors GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Venta Servicio LED, SL (Martorell, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 (Case R 2149/2018-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Venta Servicio LED and Inova Semiconductors.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

| 2. | Inova Semiconductors GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Inova Semiconductors GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
#### SHOEMAKER, Respondent, v. SECURITY MUT. LIFE INS. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Henry Shoemaker against the Security Mutual Life Insurance Company.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

SMITH, P. J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE OF ADVANCED GAMING TECHNOLOGY, INC. AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            56
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    303
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 562
<PP&E>                                          1940
<DEPRECIATION>                                   378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  7044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7088
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         603
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3797)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    7044
<SALES>                                          185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 185
<CGS>                                             92
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     92
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (94)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (94)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        


</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 295A/7 De

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 295A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 507 December 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 295A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 507 December 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2007/C 295A/01 | Reserve list - Open competition EPSO/AD/70/06: English-language Linguistic Administrators (AD7) (conference interpreters) | 1 |
| 2007/C 295A/02 | Reserve list - Open competition EPSO/AD/81/06: Lawyer-linguists (AD7) with main language English | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2007/C 295A/01

Reserve list - Open competition EPSO/AD/70/06: English-language Linguistic Administrators (AD7) (conference interpreters)

1

2007/C 295A/02

Reserve list - Open competition EPSO/AD/81/06: Lawyer-linguists (AD7) with main language English

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2019270EN.01004001.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/40

---

Action brought on 21 June 2019 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)

(Case T-378/19)

(2019/C 270/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Topcart GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carl International (Limonest, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark TC CARL — Application No 15 048 556

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2019 in Case R 1617/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### In the Matter of Wilfredo Rosario, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 919] —

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

*1529After returning from court, petitioner refused a correction officer’s directive to report to a program. Consequently, he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order and failing to accept a program assignment. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing. On administrative appeal, the charge of failing to accept a program assignment was dismissed, but the remainder of the determination was upheld. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Inasmuch as petitioner pleaded guilty to refusing a direct order, he is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see *Matter of Lineberger v Bezio,*89 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2011], *appeal dismissed*19 NY3d 847 [2012]; *Matter of Cruz v Walsh,*87 AD3d 1234, 1234 [2011]). Petitioner’s further claim that the Hearing Officer did not provide him with an adequate statement of evidence relied upon has not been preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it in his administrative appeal *(see Matter of Santos v Evans,*81 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2011]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40079-40080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15820]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--CHEDE-8

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 2, 2021, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), CHEDE-8 (``CHEDE-8'') has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Dongfeng 
Commercial Vehicle Co., LTM, Hubei, CHINA, has been added as a party to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CHEDE-8 intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On December 4, 2019, CHEDE-8 filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on December 30, 2019 (84 FR 71977).

[[Page 40080]]

    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 6, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5251).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-15820 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16101]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: July 29, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
July 21, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 200 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2021-115, CP2021-117.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2021-16101 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, LouisPrichard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   |   | /s/  Louis Prichard      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   |                     |
|   |   | March 31,  2010     |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by KentuckyBancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Steven Getraer, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                     
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
Company for the periods presented.

Dated: June 16, 2008

|By: | /s/ Steven Getraer     
|--- | -----------------------
|    | Steven Getraer         
|    | Chief Financial Officer

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---