alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### YU CHUN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-0807-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 25, 2006.

Aleksander Milch, Christophe & Associates, New York New York, for Petitioner.

Margaret M. Chiara, United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, Michael L. Schipper, Assistant United States Attorney, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. WILFRED FEINBERG, Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

*39SUMMARY ORDER

Yu Chun Chen, through counsel, petitions for review of the January 2005 BIA decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. *See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001). An abuse of discretion may be found where the BIA’s decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” *Id.*

The BIA denied Chen’s motion to reopen because he failed to offer previously unavailable material evidence or to establish changed country conditions in China. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), (3)(ii); *INS v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). The BIA did not abuse its discretion. In support of his motion to reopen, Chen submitted certificates of his wife’s abortion and cremation that indicated they were reissued or replacement versions of documents originally issued in 1999. He also submitted statements by his relatives corroborating the details of his wife’s death. Chen did not explain why these documents or statements were unavailable at the time of his initial hearing. In support of his claim of changed country conditions, Chen submitted evidence that China’s birth control policy had been codified since his removal proceedings; however, as the BIA noted, that codification represents a continuation, rather than a change, in China’s birth control policy. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its authority to reopen Chen’s proceedings *sua sponte. Ali v. Gonzales,*448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.
EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of CyberOptics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Kathleen P.
Iverson, Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey A. Bertelsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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 Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/   Kathleen P. Iverson                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                          
| | Kathleen P. IversonChief Executive OfficerAugust 9, 2005 
|
|
|
| | /s/   Jeffrey A. Bertelsen                               
| |                                                          
| | Jeffrey A. BertelsenChief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2005

---
# C_2017424EN.01005401.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/54

---

Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Temes Rial and Others v SRB

(Case T-705/17)

(2017/C 424/78)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Enrique Manuel Temes Rial (Vilagarcía de Arousa, Spain), Jon Nuñes Baracaldo (Erandio Astraburua, Spain), Maria Luisa Muniente Pallas (Madrid, Spain), Alfonso Velasco Nieto (Madrid) and Gloria María Zarco Martínez (Guarnizo el Astillero, Spain) (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer).

Applicants:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which that decision is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which that decision is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

| — | Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

| — | Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
(104 So. 753)

#### Ex parte PARAMOUNT COAL CO. WILLIAMS v. PARAMOUNT COAL CO.

(6 Div. 336.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 28, 1925.)

1. Master and servant <&wkey;>412 — Bill of exceptions considered, where findings of fact in compensation proceedings are too meager.

When findings of fact in proceeding under Workmen’s Compensation Act are too meager to fully inform reviewing court in regard to previous weekly, earning'of employs, bill of exceptions will be considered.

2. Master and servant &wkey;o412 — Finding on evidence in compensation case conclusive.

Where there is any legal evidence to support finding in proceeding under Workmen’s Compensation Act, such finding is conclusive on review.

3. Master and servant &wkey;>420 — Taxation of costs against defendant in compensation proceedings held proper.

In proceeding under Workmen’s Compensation Act, provision in decree awarding compensation that “defendants shall pay all costs of this proceeding” *held*proper, in view of Gen. Acts 1919, p. 228.

igssFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger W. Snyder, Judge.

Petition of the Paramount Coal Company for certiorari to the circuit court of Jefferson county to review the judgment and finding of that court in a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Tom Williams against petitioner.

Writ denied.

By the decree awarding compensation it is provided that “the defendant shall pay all the costs of this proceeding.”

B. F. Smith and A. M. Boone, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

The decree awarding compensation does not contain a statement of the law and facta of the case, and is insufficient. Acts 1919, p. 227, § 28; /Etna Co. v. Schaeffer, 209 Ala. 77, 95 So. '351. Defendant should not have been taxed with the costs, there, being no evidence of incorrect payment or default in payment by defendant. Acts 1919, p. 220, § 28.

W. A. Denson, of Birmingham, for appellee.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.

THOMAS, X

[1,2] The findings of fact being too meager to fully inform this court in respect to the previous weekly earnings of Tom Williams, the bill of exceptions is considered. Ex parte Mt. Carmel Coal Co., 209 Ala. 519, 96 So. 626. In Woodward Iron Co. v. Bradford, 206 Ala. 447, 90 So. 803, Ex parte H. T. Smith Lumber Co., 206 Ala. 485, 90 So. 807, and Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. (Greek’s Case), 207 Ala. 219, 92 So. 458, it was declared of adjudications under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Laws 1919, p. 206) that, where there is “any legal evidence to support the finding, such finding is conclusive, and no technical questions as to the admissibility of evidence will be here considered.” At the trial the evidence of the wife and Mr. Donaldson was before the court, and there was evidence on the part of the former to support the judgment rendered.

[3] The costs were awarded within the terms of the statute. Gen. Acts 1919, p. 228.

The writ is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, Kelyn Brannon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Calix,
Inc. for the quarter ended September 25, 2010;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The
registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: October 21, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ KELYN BRANNON      
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Kelyn Brannon          
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Todd M. Smith, Respondent, v James C. Tormey, District Administrative Judge, Fifth Judicial District, Respondent, and County of Onondaga et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 19, 2012;

decided March 22, 2012

Reported below, 83 AD3d 1425.

Motion by New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
153 So. 917

#### CITY OF ANDALUSIA v. W. I. GROSS.

4 Div. 724.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 29, 1934.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,
Sunil Kumar, certify that:

1.    I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of International Specialty Holdings Inc.;

2.    Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.    The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 23, 2004

|/s/SUNIL KUMAR |  |                                      
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Name:          |  | Sunil Kumar                          
|Title:         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

---

QuickLinks
# C_2019263EN.01001201.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé — Belgium) — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA

(Case C-58/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Pre-contractual obligations - Article 5(6) - Obligation on the creditor to seek to establish the credit most suitable - Article 8(1) - Obligation on the creditor to refrain from concluding the loan agreement if there are doubts over the creditworthiness of the consumer - Obligation on the creditor to assess the expediency of the credit)

(2019/C 263/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de Paix du canton de Visé

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michel Schyns

Defendant: Belfius Banque SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges creditors or credit intermediaries to seek to establish, within the framework of the credit agreements which they usually offer, the type and the amount of credit most suitable, taking into account the consumer’s financial situation at the time the credit agreement is concluded and the purpose of the credit. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges creditors or credit intermediaries to seek to establish, within the framework of the credit agreements which they usually offer, the type and the amount of credit most suitable, taking into account the consumer’s financial situation at the time the credit agreement is concluded and the purpose of the credit.

| 2. | Article 5(6) and Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges the creditor to refrain from concluding the credit agreement if he cannot reasonably take the view, following the check of the consumer’s creditworthiness, that the consumer will be able to fulfil the obligations arising from the proposed agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(6) and Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges the creditor to refrain from concluding the credit agreement if he cannot reasonably take the view, following the check of the consumer’s creditworthiness, that the consumer will be able to fulfil the obligations arising from the proposed agreement.

---

(1)  OJ C 166. 14.5.2018.

---
# Exhibit 99.1

|PRESTO*National Presto Industries, Inc.Eau Claire, WI  54703-3703 | Tel.  715-839-2121Fax. 715-839-2148
715-839-2122715-839-2242
|----------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|NEWS RELEASEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                 | Contact:  Randy F. Lieble715-839-2164                       

Eau
Claire, Wisconsin (November 4, 2005)  National Presto Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPK)
announced today that the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted the Securities and Exchange Commissions (SEC) pretrial motion for summary
judgement in litigation regarding the Investment Company Act of 1940. The decision is the
most recent development in the lawsuit filed in July 2002 under which the SEC alleged that
National Presto was an investment company under the 1940 Act.

In
commenting on the courts decision, a company spokesperson stated, Presto plans
to appeal the ruling at the appropriate time. Since the matter is still in litigation,
based on advice of counsel the company does not intend to make further public comments
regarding this matter at this time.

National
Presto designs and sells small household electric appliances and pressure cookers under
the PRESTO® brand name. It also produces defense items and absorbent products. The
company is widely recognized as an innovator of new products.

*Trademark of National
Presto Industries, Inc.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 24 90

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Kim C. Squa ll s ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. Pat ric k R . Don ah oe , Pos tm as te r Gen eral ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee Gin a Dud le y ; M arkH. And ers on ; J oh n Do e; Jan e Doe

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Apri l 2 7, 2 01 5 Fi le d: May 5, 20 15 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t Jud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Kim

Squa ll s ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s adve rs e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t 1 in he r act io n as se rti ng cl ai m s un de r Ti t l e VII an d th e Age Dis cri m in at io n in Em pl oym en t Act (ADEA). Upo n care fu l d e n o vo rev ie w, s ee Torg ers on v. Ci ty o f Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31 , 10 4 2 , 1 0 49 -5 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w; di sc us si ng le ga l st an da rd s) , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co urt di d no t err in it s su m m ary jud gm en t de ci si on , s e e G i b s on v. Am . Gr eet in gs Co rp ., 6 70 F.3 d 84 4, 85 2- 55 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 2 ) ( a f firm in g gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t in Tit le VII act io n; d is cu ss in g pr et ex t); Rah lf v. Mo -Tech Co rp ., In c., 64 2 F.3 d 63 3, 63 6- 40 (8 th C i r . 20 11 ) (aff

irming gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t in ADEA ac ti on ; di sc us si ng p r e t e x t )

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ro dn ey W

. Si pp el , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ctof M is so ur i. -2

-
AFH Holding IV, Inc. 10-Q







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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFH Holding IV, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, I, Amir F. Heshmatpour, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
 
 1.           Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: May 17, 2010
 
 /s/ Amir F. HeshmatpourAmir F. HeshmatpourPresident, Secretary and Sole Director(Principal Executive Officer)

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)