alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40484 Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: CLAMONT ENERGY CORPORATION, INC.,

Debtor

LEO ROGERS DUGAS, Appellant,

versus

CLAMONT ENERGY CORPORATION, INC.; CLARON CORPORATION, INC., Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas (1:96-CV-478)

October 28, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Leo Roger Dugas, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal1 See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

2 In re Moody , 41 F.3d 1024 (5th Cir. 1995).

2 of his appeal of the judgment of the bankruptcy court. The dates of action in this

cause are important. On April 16, 1996 the bankruptcy court orally announced that

the proceeding would be remanded to state court. On May 9, 1996 Dugas filed a

motion for reconsideration five days befor e the court signed a written order on

remand. The bankruptcy court denied this motion on June 11, 1996. Dugas noticed

an appeal to the district court 17 days later on June 28, 1996. The district court

dismissed the appeal as untimely. Dugas appealed to this court within 30 days of

the ruling by the district court.

Jurisdiction is always a threshold issue. Accordingly, we do not reach the

merits of Dugas’ motion for we must conclude that the district court correctly ruled

that it was compelled to dismiss the appeal of the bankruptc y court’s order for

failure of a timely appeal. Although the district court has jurisdiction to hear

appeals from the bankruptcy court, 1 to effectuate that appellate jurisdiction a party

must file a notice of appeal within 10 day s after entry of the order subject to the

appeal. 2 The effect of a motion, such as one under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 9023

to alter or amend the judgment, shall run from the entry of the order denying such3 Fed.Bankr.R. 8002(b)(2).

4 This court has previously held that a motion to reconsider, brought before the time to appeal has expired, is more properly treated as a Rule 9023 motion, which tolls the 10-day period for appeals. In re Aguilar , 861 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1988).

3 motion. 3 Therefore, Dugas’ failure to file a notice of appeal within 10 days after

the bankruptcy court’s ruling on the motion to reconsider compelled dismissal of

the appeal by the district court. 4 That failure likewise compels our ruling.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
ROBERT W. RAINWATER, Oregon State Bar No. 084489 

Email: rrainwater@rainwatcrlaw.org 

Rainwater Law Group 

1327 SE Tacoma Street, Suite 239 

Portland, Oregon 97202-6639 

Telephone: (971) 271-7566 

Fax: (503) 231-8276 

Attorney for Defendant 

JASON BLOMGREN 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JASON BLOMGREN, 

Defendant. 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

ORDER 

ORDER FOR NONCUSTODIAL 

TRANSPORTATION AND SUBSISTENCE 

EXPENSES [Oregon to North Carolina] 

IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 4285, the United 

States Marshal be ordered to arrange for Mr. Jason Blorngren's means of noncustodial 

transpmiation or furnish the fare for such transportation as well as furnish Mr. Blomgren with an 

amount of money for subsistence expenses from Portland, Oregon to Murphy, North Carolina on 

June 17, 2016. Mr. Blomgren's has a court hearing on June 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Blomgen's 

address and telephone number will be provided to the United States Marshal Service. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 683 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 2
Dated: June~, 

2016 

ORDER 

United States Distri 

2 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 683 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Ramon BUCIO-CARILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles GILKEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-56742.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Roger S. Hanson, Esq., Law Offices of Roger S. Hanson, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Because this panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Bucio-Carillo's request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Bucio-Carillo appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Bucio-Carillo contends that his underlying state conviction was constitutionally flawed, and that the ensuing removal order, and his subsequent conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, *801are therefore invalid. He further contends that the dismissal of his prior federal habeas petitions violated his due process rights.

With respect to the challenge to his underlying state conviction, Bucio-Carillo contends that the district court erred by dismissing the instant petition based on its finding that he was no longer “in custody.” We disagree. It is a statutory jurisdictional prerequisite that habeas petitioners be in custody at the time of filing. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Bucio-Carillo’s state prison sentence expired in 2000, and he filed the instant petition in 2005. Accordingly, Bucio-Carillo was not “in custody” at the time of filing, and the district court was correct in finding that it lacked jurisdiction. *See Maleng v. Cook,*490 U.S. 488, 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (per curiam). We reject Bucio-Carillo’s contention that his deportation following his state conviction, as the basis for his illegal reentry conviction, renders him “in custody” for purposes of section 2241. *See id.*

To the extent Bucio-Carillo challenges the validity of his illegal reentry conviction, we conclude that such contentions were raised and rejected on direct appeal from that conviction, and cannot be used as the basis for a subsequent habeas petition. *See United States v. Hayes,*231 F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                           6,154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (135)
<INVENTORY>                                         69
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,474
<PP&E>                                          99,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                (47,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,950
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,388)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,207
<SALES>                                        120,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,086
<CGS>                                           98,942
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    738
<INCOME-TAX>                                       491
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                247
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,139
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (892)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Montemurro, Sr., Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), both rendered August 6, 1985, convicting him of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree under indictment No. 57804, and resisting arrest, escape in the third degree, and criminal trespass in the second degree under indictment No. 59513, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

In its charge to the jury on flight, the trial court should have instructed the jury that such evidence had slight probative value *(see, People v Yazum,*13 NY2d 302, 304; *People v Limage,*57 AD2d 906, *affd*45 NY2d 845; 1 CJI [NY] 9.16 p 485). However, in the absence of any objection to the flight charge on that ground, and in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we decline to reverse the judgments of conviction.

In addition, the trial court properly declined to charge the jury as to assault in the third degree as a lesser included offense since there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support such a charge *(see, People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61; *People v Kinnard,*98 AD2d 845, *affd*62 NY2d 910).

We have considered the defendant’s other claims and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report dated February 24, 2001, except for the subsequent
financing information discussed in Note 5 as to which the date is March 22,
2001. included in this Form 10-K, into Caraustar Industries, Inc.'s previously
filed Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-77682, File No.
33-75838, File No. 33-53808, File No. 33-53726, File No. 333-02948, File No.
333-57965 and File No. 333-37168), Forms S-3 (File No. 333-66943 and File No.
333-6555) and Forms S-4 (File No. 333-66945 and File No. 333-31618).



/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
-------------------------
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 2001
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21.1 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              State or Jurisdiction  
                                                 % of Voting Securities       Under the Law of       
Name                                             Owned                        Which Organized        
<S>                                              <C>                          <C>
Subsidiaries of National Processing, Inc.                                                            
                                                                                                     
National Processing Company, Inc.                100%                         Kentucky               
NPC International S.A. de C.V.                   99.6%                        Mexico                 
B&L Consultants, Inc.                            100%                         Massachusettes         
NPC Check Services, Inc.                         100%                         Delaware               
NPC Services, Inc.                               100%                         Arizona                
NTA, Inc.                                        100%                         Washington             
FA Holdings Inc.                                 100%                         Delaware               
Financial Alliance Processing Services, Inc.     100%                         Delaware               
Caribbean Data Services, Ltd.                    100%                         Delaware               
JBH Travel Audit Inc.                            100%                         Colorado               
NPC International (Barbados) Holdings                                                                
  Limited                                        100%                         Barbados               
NPC International (Barbados) Limited             100%                         Barbados               
NPC International (Jamaica) Limited              100%                         Jamaica                
NPC International (Dominican Republic) S.A.      100%                         Dominican Republic     
NPC International (Fiji) Limited                 100%                         Fiji                   
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the report of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

(2)                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Joseph R. Tomkinson |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Joseph R. Tomkinson     |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| May 10, 2007            |
|                    |
| /s/ Gretchen D. Verdugo |   |   |
| Gretchen D. Verdugo     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 10, 2007            |

 

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

----
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice of SBIC fee increases.
 SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is providing notice of the increased licensing and examination fees charged to Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) due to the annual inflation adjustment required under SBIC program regulations.
 DATES: The changes to the SBIC program licensing and examination fees identified in this notice take effect on October 1, 2021.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Knott, Office of Investment and Innovation, at 202-205-7731 or 
                        *steve.knott@sba.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beginning October 1, 2021, the SBIC program regulations at 13 CFR 107.300(b)(2) and 107.692(b)(2) require SBA to annually adjust the licensing and examination fees for SBICs using the Inflation Adjustment defined in 13 CFR 107.50. This document provides notice of that adjustment. The table below identifies the amounts of the adjusted licensing and examination fees payable by SBICs and SBIC license applicants, which become effective on October 1, 2021. SBIC fee type
Fees amounts
                             (effective 
                             Oct. 1, 2021)**Licensing Fees (§ 107.300)**Initial Licensing Fee § 107.300(a)
$10,500Final Licensing Fee § 107.300(b)
36,900**Examination Fees (§ 107.692(b))**Minimum Base Fee
9,500Maximum Base Fee for non-Leveraged SBICs
31,600Maximum Base Fee for Leveraged SBICs
46,400
 
 
 (Authority: 15 U.S.C. 681(e) and 687b(b), 13 CFR 107.300 and 107.692) Thomas Morris, Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.


[FR Doc. 2021-18856 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. (collectively, the "Registrant") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Don H. Barden,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Jon S. Bennett,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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) 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 Registrant.

Date: March 30, 2004

/s/ Don H. Barden
--------------------------------------------------------
Don H. Barden
Manager, Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.

/s/ Jon S. Bennett
--------------------------------------------
Jon S. Bennett
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.



     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.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40419 Conference Calendar

CECIL P. SAPP; DENISE STOCKTON, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus ADELAIDO FLORES, JR.; CAMERON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ COURT; CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS; CAMERON COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-00-CV-137

-------------------- October 26, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Cecil P. Sapp and Denise Stockton appeal the districtcourt’s dismissal of their civil action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. They argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motion for an extension of time to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss and in denying the motion for reconsideration of this denial. We have reviewed the record and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying these motions.No. 01-40419 -2-

** Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983). “The Rooker-Feldman ** doctrine holds that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state judgments.” United States v. Shepherd , 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994) (footnote omitted). If the district court must examine issues that are “inextricably intertwined with a state judgment, the [district] court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, and the originality of the district court’s jurisdiction precludes such a review.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). All of Sapp’s and Stockton’s claims of constitutional violations are based on their allegation that the state-court transcript was fabricated. The state trial court has already determined that the transcript was accurate. Thus, the claims presented to the district court were inextricably intertwined with the state court’s judgment, and the district court was being called on to review the state court’s decision regarding the accuracy of the transcript. The district court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to address the claims. See Shepherd , 23 F.3d at 924. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles W. Maynard, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered April 7, 1985, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2009107EN.01001001.xml

| 9.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5347 — Mapfre/Salvador Caetano/JV'S)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 107/02

On 20 April 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5347. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5347. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---