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### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  O LUWAFEMI I JOGUN , Petitioner,

v. No. 03-1233



# 

J OHN A SHCROFT , Respondent. 

# 

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

(A22-202-239)
Submitted: September 29, 2003

Decided: October 28, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
Richard W. Moore, Sr., Towson, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Barry J. Pettinato, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:
Oluwafemi Ijogun, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order affirming the immigration judge’s decision that Ijogun had abandoned his permanent resident alien status prior to reentering the United States and thus was subject to removal. Ijogun argues the immigrationjudge misapplied the relevant burden of proof in reaching this conclusion and that the evidence did not support this finding. For the following reasons, we deny Ijogun’s petition for review. First, we are unpersuaded that Ijogun preserved his objection to the immigration judge’s characterization of the relevant burden of proof. Although the immigration judge indicated during Ijogun’s hearing that the burden was on Ijogun to contest removability once the United States had made a "prima facie case" of abandonment, the record doesnot reflect an objection to this formulation either before the immigration judge or the BIA. Hence, review of this alleged error is waived. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). Second, even if review of Ijogun’s objection is appropriate, thematerials in the joint appendix provide clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Ijogun abandoned his permanent resident status, such that he did not qualify as a returning resident alien. See Woodby v. INS , 385 U.S. 276, 286 (1966) (providing standard); Khodagholian v. Ashcroft , 335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003). The immigrationjudge’s findings, which Ijogun has failed to contradict with compelling evidence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000), demonstrate Ijogun’s substantial ties to Nigeria and a dearth of ties to the United States, despite the fact that Ijogun received permanent resident status in 1984. Hence, Ijogun fails to demonstrate that the immigration judge’s abandonment determination is "manifestly contrary to law." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C) (2000). Accordingly, Ijogun’s petition for review is denied. We dispensewith 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 2 I JOGUN v. A SHCROFT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Thomas, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.), rendered on January 16, 1986, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity
as an officer of SPACEHAB, Incorporated (SPACEHAB), that, to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SPACEHAB on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SPACEHAB.

Date: May 10, 2006



/s/ Michael E. KearneyMichael E. KearneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Brian K. HarringtonBrian K. HarringtonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


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



37
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
 
 
 **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 eLinear, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JoAnn Agee, Principal
Accounting 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 to
the best of my knowledge:
 
 (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 Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
JoAnn Agee ___________________
 JoAnn
Agee,
 Principal
Accounting Officer
 May 20,
2005
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
eLinear, Inc. and will be retained by eLinear, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Jing Thomas Wu, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of AMERICAN LORAIN CORPORATION (the Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 16th day of April 2008.

| | /s/ Jing Thomas Wu                   
| | -------------------------------------
| | Jing Thomas Wu                       
| | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| | (Principal Financial Officer)        

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C.
Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, TimPaterson-Brown, Chief Executive Officer of MGT Capital Investments Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
| (1)    |                                                                                                                                                             | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for  the quarterly period ended March 31 , 2007 (the           |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | “Report”) fully complies with the requirements  of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|   |                                                                                                                                                             |                                                                                                            |
| (2)    |                                                                                                                                                             | the information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and |
|   | results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                            |

 
|             |   | By:    |   | /s/ TIM PATERSON-BROWN  |
|-------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|        |   |   |   | Tim Paterson-Brown      |
|        |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| May 2, 2007 |   |   |   |                    |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          42,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,792
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,802
<PP&E>                                         271,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,365
<BONDS>                                        171,965
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,858
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,635
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,922
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,713
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,713
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### People *ex rel.*Frey *v.*Bell, Police Commissioner.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Municipal Corporations—Removal op Policeman.

The dismissal of a patrolman from the police force upon a charge of willfully maltreating and using unnecessary violence towards a prisoner, in violation of rule 133 of the police department, will not be disturbed where an examination of the testimony introduced on the trial shows that relator while making an arrest several times struck the prisoner (who was intoxicated, and who neither resisted arrest nor assaulted relator) on the head with his nightstick.

*Certiorari*to review the action of James D. Bell, police commissioner of the city of Brooklyn, in dismissing relator, Frederick M. Frey, from the police force of said city.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*J. A. Wernberg,*for relator. *F. A. McCloskey,*for respondent.

Dykman, J.

This is a writ of *certiorari*to review the proceedings of the defendant as commissioner of police of the city of Brooklyn in the trial and dismissal of the relator, who was a patrolman of the police department of the city of Brooklyn. The specification of the charge upon which the relator was tried was “that said patrolman Frey, on September 2, 1888, at I a. m., willfully maltreated his prisoner, John McLaren, using unnecessary violenc e towards the same by striking him repeatedly over the head with a night-stick, inflicting severe scalp wounds, while said McLaren did neither resist arrest *830nor assault said policeman.” The charge was for a violation of rule 133, which is this: “Any member of the force who shall willfully maltreat, cr use unnecessary violence towards a prisoner or citizen, on complaint being made, and the fact established by competent testimony, after a due trial had, shall be immediately dismissed from office, or otherwise punished. ” The relator was tried before the commissioner in the usual manner, and found guilty, and sentenced to dismissal from the police force'. An examination of the testimony introduced upon the trial discloses a full justification of the condemnation of the relator. His treatment of .the intoxicated man whom he arrested was entirely unjustifiable. He maltreated him and used unnecessary violence towards him, and he therefore fell under the condemnation of rule 133, and his punishment was justified by that rule. The proceeding should therefore be confirmed. All concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2413 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

601 South Main Street in Elkhart, Indiana, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant 

Jesse L. Williams Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mrs. WALORSKI (for herself, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. ROKITA, 

Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana, Mr. MESSER, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. 

BUCSHON, and Mr. YOUNG of Indiana) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 601 South Main Street in Elkhart, Indiana, 

as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Jesse L. Williams Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT JESSE L. WILLIAMS POST OF4 FICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 601 South Main Street in Elk7 hart, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff 

8 Sergeant Jesse L. Williams Post Office’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2413 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Jesse 

5 L. Williams Post Office’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
vnue_ex107.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.7
  
  
  
  
 	 
	1
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	2
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	3
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	4
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	5
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	6
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	7
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60348 Conference Calendar

MOSES CHARLES EVERETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EDWARD M. HARGETT; CHRISTINE HOUSTON, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94-CV-128-B-B

- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Moses Charles Everett, Jr., Mississippi prisoner #76894, appeals the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Everett contends that the district court erred in denying him additional credit against his sentence for sexual battery. Everett’s claim is precluded by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct.No. 96-60348 - 2 - 2364, 2372-74 (1994), because the relief he seeks would imply the invalidity of his state-court sentence. A review of the record indicates that Everett’s contentions are without merit. Everett’s appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Everett that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Everett is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### Mint Factors, Respondent, v Cedar Tide Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Gunnigle, Johnson, P. C., Respondents.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Elizabeth Chandler and Cedar Tide Corp. appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered November 19, 1985, which, after a hearing to fix the value of the legal services rendered by the appellants’ former attorneys, Gunnigle, Johnson, P. C., is in favor of those attorneys and against the appellants in the sum of $15,675.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the application of Gunnigle, Johnson, P. C., for legal fees is denied.

By order to show cause dated February 19, 1985, the appellants made a motion pursuant to CPLR 321 (b) for an order directing the substitution of new counsel to take the place of the firm of Gunnigle, Johnson, P. C. The parties, on appeal, agree that pursuant to a directive of the court made in April 1985, Gunnigle, Johnson, P. C., transferred their litigation file to the new attorneys for the appellants. It is clear, in any event, that the file was transferred to the new attorneys, and *223was in their possession during various proceedings which occurred in July and August of 1985. It was not until November 12, 1985, that a hearing was held in order to fix the value of the services rendered by Gunnigle, Johnson, P. C. After that hearing, the court determined that the value of those services was $15,675. Judgment was entered in that sum, and this appeal followed. We reverse.

The court erred when it directed the outgoing attorneys to transfer the papers upon which they had a retaining lien before determining the value of the attorneys’ services and before assuring that payment for those services was adequately secured *(see, Pileggi v Pileggi,*127 AD2d 751; *Artim v Artim,*109 AD2d 811; *Rosen v Rosen,*97 AD2d 837; *Petrillo v Petrillo,*87 AD2d 607; *Gamble v Gamble,*78 AD2d 673). The attorneys’ retaining lien depended on possession of the file, and conferred on them no rights other than to retain possession of the file until the payment for their services was secured *(see, First Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Novick Realty Corp.,*72 AD2d 858, 859; *Goldman v Rafel Estates,*269 App Div 647, 649; *Schwartz v Schwartz,*25 Misc 2d 225, 226). While they were entitled to a summary determination of the value of the services in connection with the assertion of a lien, the outgoing attorneys were not entitled to an order directing the entry of a money judgment against their former clients, either before or after they relinquished the file *(cf., Matter of Rosenblum,*121 AD2d 546, 547; *Ryan v Ryan,*75 AD2d 1000, *lv dismissed*51 NY2d 709). To obtain the judgment sought, the attorneys must commence a plenary action. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002 Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of
Astrotech Corporation (Astrotech), that, to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Astrotech on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Astrotech. Date: February 1, 2010 /s/ Thomas B. Pickens, III 
 /s/ John M. Porter
John M. Porter
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Astrotech and will be retained
by Astrotech and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  3
# C_2021402EN.01000701.xml

| 5.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10470 – Swiss Life Holding/Vauban Infrastructure Partners/Aves One)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 402/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Swiss Life Holding AG (‘Swiss Life’, Switzerland), |
| --- | --- |

—

Swiss Life Holding AG (‘Swiss Life’, Switzerland),

| — | Vauban Infrastructure Partners (‘Vauban’, France), belonging to the group BPCE S.A., |
| --- | --- |

—

Vauban Infrastructure Partners (‘Vauban’, France), belonging to the group BPCE S.A.,

| — | Aves One AG (‘Aves one’, Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

Aves One AG (‘Aves one’, Germany).

Swiss Life and Vauban acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Aves One.

The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 21 September 2021.

2.

| — | for Swiss Life: provider of comprehensive life, pensions and financial solutions. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Swiss Life: provider of comprehensive life, pensions and financial solutions.

| — | for Vauban: asset management company with a focus on infrastructure equity investments. Vauban belongs to the French banking group BPCE S.A. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Vauban: asset management company with a focus on infrastructure equity investments. Vauban belongs to the French banking group BPCE S.A.

| — | for Aves One: owner and lessor of rail freight wagons and swap bodies. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Aves One: owner and lessor of rail freight wagons and swap bodies.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10470 - Swiss Life Holding/Vauban Infrastructure Partners/Aves One

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---