alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1772

MEHERET GETAHUN,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;

JOHN ASHCROFT,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A74-290-637)

Submitted: January 23, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lynda V. Rice, CAROLYN C. EAGLIN & ASSOCIATES, Alexandria,

Virginia; Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK,

Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director,

Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Meheret Getahun, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions

for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings based

on a claim for protection under the United Nations Convention

Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment. Getahun contends that the Board improperly applied the

asylum standard in assessing this claim and failed to give proper

weight to relevant country conditions in finding that she failed to

establish a prima facie case that it is more likely than not she

would suffer torture if she returned to Ethiopia. We have reviewed

the administrative record and the Board’s decision. We conclude

that the Board applied the correct standard in evaluating Getahun’s

claim, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to

reopen. See Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999); 8

C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2002). 

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
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **Certification of Principal Financial Officer**I, C. Timothy Trenary, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Dura AutomotiveSystems, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; and  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting./s/ C. Timothy Trenary C. Timothy Trenary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,878
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,929
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,163
<PP&E>                                           7,691
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,008
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           151
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,420
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,289
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,206
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,938
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,390
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,185
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3039

KEVIN POTTER; MARGUERITE C. POTTER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY; STEPHANIE E.

MOORE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CRESTWOOD GOLF CLUB, INCORPORATED; CRESTWOOD

PARTNERSHIP; JOHN BOYD; WALTER BRYANT; DALE

BRYANT; GEORGE SPRUCE MCCAIN; CLAUDE MCCAIN;

JACK DICKEY; DICKEY COMPANY; JAMES MOSTELLER,

III; KELLY CANNON; MCCAIN FINANCIAL GROUP,

INCORPORATED; SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK;

WILLIAM BERRY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; MICHAEL

CHAPPELL; JAMES S. WILLIAMSON, JR.,

Defendants.

No. 95-3200

KEVIN POTTER; MARGUERITE C. POTTER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus
2

SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK; WILLIAM BERRY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CRESTWOOD GOLF CLUB, INCORPORATED; CRESTWOOD

PARTNERSHIP; JOHN BOYD; WALTER BRYANT; DALE

BRYANT; GEORGE SPRUCE MCCAIN; CLAUDE MCCAIN;

JACK DICKEY; DICKEY COMPANY; JAMES MOSTELLER,

III; KELLY CANNON; MCCAIN FINANCIAL GROUP,

INCORPORATED; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY;

STEPHANIE E. MOORE; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; MICHAEL

CHAPPELL; JAMES S. WILLIAMSON, JR.,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-94-2047-5-22-BC)

Submitted: April 16, 1996 Decided: May 24, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Potter, Marguerite C. Potter, Appellants Pro Se. Mark Wester

McKnight, Charleston, South Carolina; Stanley Harold McGuffin, Sr.,

SINKLER & BOYD, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's orders discussing

some, but not all, defendants in Appellants' civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not

appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

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.

DISMISSED
1 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ROBERT M. MORANO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-35556 

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00386-HZ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 8, 2020**

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit 

Judges.

Robert M. Morano (“Morano”) appeals pro se the imposition of a civil penalty 

for his admitted insider trading in violation of Sections 10(b) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Exchange Act 

* 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

OCT 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Rule 10b-5(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1291 and affirm.

Morano’s consent judgment resolved all issues of liability, leaving only a 

determination whether a civil penalty should be imposed and, if so, in what amount. 

The Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) argued for a penalty of three times 

the amount of insider trading gain. The district court imposed a penalty of $75,000,

or twice the gain.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, SEC v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 

F.3d 1072, 1098 (9th Cir. 2010), the determination to impose a civil penalty and 

calculation of its amount were reasonable given Morano’s admitted misuse of insider 

information and his admission that he had engaged in similar conduct in the past.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.5


 


FOLEY TRASIMENE ACQUISITION CORP.


1701 Village Center Circle


Las Vegas, NV 89134


[·], 2020


 


Cannae Holdings, Inc.

1701 Village Center Circle

Las Vegas, NV 89134


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm our agreement that,
commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration
Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of Foley Trasimene
Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the completion by the Company
of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement)
(such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), Cannae Holdings, Inc. (“Cannae
Holdings”) shall take steps directly or indirectly to make available to the Company certain office space, secretarial
and administrative services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 1701 Village Center Circle, Las Vegas,
NV 89134 (or any successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay Cannae Holdings a sum of $5,000 per month, respectively,
on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. Cannae Holdings hereby agrees that it does
not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust
Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby
waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the
Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	FOLEY TRASIMENE ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	Michael L. Gravelle
	 	Title:	General Counsel and Corporate Secretary


 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:


 


	CANNAE HOLDINGS, INC.
	 
	By:	 	 
	Name:
	Title:
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 189 

To extend foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend foreclosure and eviction protections for 

servicemembers, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Servicemember Fore5 closure Protections Extension Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 189 IH

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF 

2 PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF UNI3 FORMED SERVICES RELATING TO MORT4 GAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND 

5 EVICTION. 

6 Section 710(d) of the Honoring America’s Veterans 

7 and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Pub8 lic Law 112–154; 126 Stat. 1208) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘December 

10 31, 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2016’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘January 1, 

12 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2017’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1968 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction 

and funding over questions concerning the issue of marriage with respect 

to the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. BABIN, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, 

Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. YOHO, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. MASSIE, and Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal 

court jurisdiction and funding over questions concerning 

the issue of marriage with respect to the Defense of 

Marriage Act and the Constitution, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restrain the Judges 

5 on Marriage Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1968 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION AND FUNDING. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 99 of title 28, United 

3 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘§ 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction and funding 

6 ‘‘(a) JURISDICTION.—No court created by an Act of 

7 Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme 

8 Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or de9 cide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or 

10 the validity under the Constitution of, any type of mar11 riage, section 1738C, or this section. 

12 ‘‘(b) FUNDING.—No Federal funds may be used for 

13 any litigation in, or the enforcement of any order or judg14 ment by, any court created by an Act of Congress, on any 

15 question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity 

16 under the Constitution of, any type of marriage, section 

17 1738C, or this section.’’. 

18 (b) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section 

19 or the amendments made by this section or the application 

20 thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 

21 remainder of this section, the amendments made by this 

22 section, or the application thereof to other persons not 

23 similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be 

24 affected by such invalidation. 

25 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

26 this section shall apply to any case that is pending on, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1968 IH

1 that is filed on or after, or for which the time to file an 

2 appeal has not expired as of, the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act. 

4 (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec5 tions at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new item: 

‘‘1632. Limitation on jurisdiction and funding.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
An Overview of Humpback Chub Monitoring in the 

Little Colorado River 

David Van Haverbeke (USFWS), Aaron Bunch (AGFD) 

and Bill Persons GCMRC) 
Objectives

 USFWS - Obtain spring and fall closed mark-recapture 

population estimates of humpback chub in the Little 

Colorado River (0 to 13.6 km).

 AGFD - Obtain spring CPUEs of native fish in lower 

1200 m of Little Colorado River.

 GCMRC - Investigate fish migration patterns with MUX 

antennae. 
Methods in Little Colorado River

 USFWS 

 Closed Mark Recapture 

 Mark trips: 10 days 

 Recapture trips: 10 days

 ~2 weeks between trips

 AGFD

 CPUE during 30 days in spring 

Spring Little Colorado River Results
Spring Abundance & CPUE of Humpback Chub ≥ 150 mm
Spring Abundance & CPUE of Humpback Chub ≥ 200 mm
Spring Abundance & CPUE Humpback Chub 150-199 mm
Catch per unit effort of spring bluehead 

suckers (≥ 150 mm)
Catch per unit effort of spring flannelmouth 

suckers (≥ 150 mm)
Fall Mark-Recapture Efforts
Fall Abundance of Humpback Chub ≥ 150 mm 

and ≥ 200 mm
Comparison of spring and fall adult humpback 

chub abundance ≥200 mm
Fall Age-0 VIE Mark-Recapture
Age-0 humpback chub abundances – ChapmanPetersen, preliminary estimations using capture 

probability, and age-0 cropping
Correlation between spring runoff (sum of mean daily 

flow 1 Jan – 31 May) in LCR and fall age-0 CPUE 

n = 13, r = 0.755, P = 0.003
Age-0 production significantly influences 

CPUEs of age 1 and subadult humpback chub 
Spring and Fall Species Composition 

2000-2012
Upstream Antenna Array 2011-12
Species Number Percent

Missing1 388 6.7%

Black bullhead 1 0.0%

Bluehead sucker 1,372 23.8%

Channel catfish 6 0.1%

Common carp 1 0.0%

Flannelmouth sucker 846 14.7%

Humpback chub 3,146 54.5%

Unresolved/unidentified 8 0.1%

Total 5,768 100.0%

Number of unique fish detected, and percent of total detections

LCR PIT tag antenna array, January 1 – November 30, 2012.
Number of unique fish detected per day 2012
Estimated size of humpback chub 

detected by PIT antenna array, 2012

N=3,146
Thank You
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report
on Form 10-QSB pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities
law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial Corporation as of
and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  |                                                       
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul C. Hudson
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Paul C. Hudson                                        
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Chief Executive Officer Broadway Financial
Corporation
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Sam Sarpong   
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Sam Sarpong                                           
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Chief Financial Officer Broadway Financial
Corporation
#### MOYE v. GRANDY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

January 31, 1896.)

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, unless terms of orders filed are complied with.
Exhibit 21

                           Integrated BioPharma, Inc.
                              List of Subsidiaries


InB:Manhattan Drug Company, Inc.
Gero Industries, Inc.-Inactive
Media Consultants, Inc.-Inactive
Vitamin Factory, Inc.
Connaught Press, Inc.-Inactive
Designer Nutrition Labs, Inc.-Inactive
AgroLabs, Inc.
Bioscience Technologies, Inc.-Inactive
IHT Health Products, Inc.
IHT Properties, Inc.
InB:Biotechnologies, Inc. (f/k/a NuCycle Therapy, Inc.)
InB:Paxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (f/k/a Paxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)
InB:Hauser Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (f/k/a Hauser Technical Services, Inc.)
<PAGE>

                                                                          
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                          
         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE



To The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
   QCS Corporation:

Our report on the consolidated financial statements of QCS Corporation is 
included on page F-1 of this Form 10-KSB.  In connection with our audits of 
such financial statements, we have also audited the related financial 
statement schedule on page F-17 of this Form 10-KSB.

In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when 
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, 
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information required to be 
included therein.


San Jose, California                              COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
September 22, 1997


                                       F-19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MOHAMED MOHAMED MOHAMUD,

Petitioner,

v. 

RICHARD IVES, Warden, FCI Sheridan,

Respondent.

Case No. 3:15-cv-02102-KI

JUDGMENT

_____________________________________

KING, Judge.

Based on the Record, 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for

lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of November, 2016. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

1 - JUDGMENT

Case 3:15-cv-02102-KI Document 16 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 1