alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mufeed Kaled BANNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71238.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 4, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

Mufeed Kaled Banna, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mufeed Kaled Banna, a native and citizen of Israel, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the *214BIA’s “good moral character” determination, *Ramos v. INS,*246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Banna provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and, therefore, that he lacks the good moral character required for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6); *Ramos,*246 F.3d at 1266; *see also Bernal v. INS,*154 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir.1998) (“An applicant’s false oral statements made under oath in a question- and-answer statement before an INS officer in connection with any stage of the processing of a visa constitute false testimony within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6).”).

The record does not support Banna’s remaining contentions.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*214ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
----

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 859/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 495/77 determining the categories of officials entitled to, and the conditions for and rates of, allowances for regular standby duty

(Official Journal of the European Union L 161 of 30 April 2004)

Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 859/2004 should read as follows:

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC, EURATOM) No 859/2004

of 29 April 2004                     

amending Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 495/77 determining the categories of officials entitled to, and the conditions for and rates of, allowances for regular standby duty

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 , and in particular the second paragraph of Article 56b of the Staff Regulations,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission submitted after consulting the Staff Regulations Committee,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 495/77 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 2004.

For the Council

The President

M. McDOWELL                        

----

(*1)  For the period from 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2006: grade D*1, step 1.’;

----

(1)OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 66, 12.3.1977, p. 1.

----
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                   STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
                         (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIOS)

                     GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                              ------------------------
                                                                 1997          1996
                                                              ----------    ----------
<S>                                                           <C>           <C>
Earnings:
  Net loss..................................................   $(24,152)     $(15,080)
     Add:
       Equity in loss applicable to ordinary partnership
        interests of Globalstar, L.P........................     24,152        15,080
       Interest expense.....................................     21,202        17,370
                                                               --------      --------
Earnings available to cover fixed charges(1)................   $ 21,202      $ 17,370
                                                               ========      ========
Fixed charges -- interest expense...........................   $ 21,202      $ 17,370
                                                               ========      ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........................         1x            1x
                                                               ========      ========
</TABLE>

---------------
(1) The earnings of GTL available to cover fixed charges, consist solely of
    dividends from Globalstar, L.P. on the redeemable preferred partnership
    interests held by GTL.

                                GLOBALSTAR, L.P.
                 DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                              -------------------------
                                                                 1997           1996
                                                              -----------    ----------
<S>                                                           <C>            <C>
Net loss....................................................   $ (67,586)     $(54,646)
Dividends on redeemable preferred partnership interests.....     (21,202)      (17,323)
Capitalized interest........................................     (95,895)       (9,900)
                                                               ---------      --------
Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges...............   $(184,683)     $(81,869)
                                                               =========      ========
</TABLE>
No. 310.

#### Oklahoma State Bank of Enid *v.*Fidelity & Deposit Co.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. P. C. Simons, L. E. McKnight,*and *R. W. Simons*for petitioner.

*Mr. Horace G. MeKeever*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
No. 548.

#### Southern Pacific Co. *v.*Walton, Administratrix.

January 6, 1936.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: AGRICOL CORPORATION, INC., AND GEORGE L. LEITZE 

DOCKET NUMBER: 77 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 77 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Acting Secretary of 

Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Agricol Corporation, Inc., and 

George L. Leitze 

The Bourse 

Philadelphia 6, Pennsylvania 

The complaint charges that the respondent corporation, under the direction 

and supervision of respondent George L. Leitze, cheated and defrauded its 

customers, kept false records, made false reports to customers, and bucketed 

customers' orders, all in violation of section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

It is further alleged that the respondent corporation failed to segregate and 

account separately for customers' funds and to make and maintain required 

records with respect to such funds, in violation of section 4d(2) of the act and 

the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time, on July 23, 1957, at Washington, D. C. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Greenstar International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending October 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Bradley B. Eavenson Chief Executive Officer, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Date: December 14, 2007

By: /s/ Bradley B Eavenson
    ----------------------
    Bradley B. Eavenson
    Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581

Telephone: (202) 418-5000

Facsimile: (202) 418-5521

www.cftc.gov

Financial Management 

Branch

February 17, 2017 

Planned Analysis of FY 2016 Inventory 

I. Background 

Pursuant to Section 743(f) of Division C of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-117, the following planned analysis of the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (CFTC) FY 2016 Service Contract Inventory is provided. Per the 

December 2011 guidance issued by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), each 

agency shall also submit to OFPP a planned analysis identifying which special interest functions 

in its FY 2016 inventory will be evaluated for analysis in FY 2017.

II. Special Interest Functions for Evaluation

Based on Section B.2 of OFPP’s December 2011 guidance, the Commission shall submit a 

planned analysis identifying which special interest functions in its FY 2016 inventory will be 

evaluated for analysis. 

The two (2) special interest functions displayed in the table below were selected for analysis 

based on the critical nature of the function. 

Special Interest 

Function Code

Description of Function Dollars Obligated in 

FY 2016

D302

IT AND TELECOM- SYSTEMS 

DEVELOPMENT $17,796,313.92

R425

SUPPORT- PROFESSIONAL: 

ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL $6,780,760.26

III. Rationale for Function Code Selected

Function codes D302 and R425 accounted for the largest portion of total obligations for the 

CFTC in the past fiscal year. The CFTC has selected these codes for analysis because of the 

continued reliance on contractors to perform services in these areas as well as the associated risk 

for inherently governmental work to be performed by contractors in these areas. As part of the 

FY 2016 inventory analysis, the CFTC will monitor/evaluate contracted services to determine 

whether contractor personnel perform critical agency functions that could affect the CFTC’s 

ability to maintain control of its mission and operations. The agency continues to undertake 

measures and continues to be committed to reducing the risks in these areas.
# 04-30219 USA v. Brown, et al.

Schroeder, Graber, Fisher, CJJ

200.00517
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry D. BILLIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-3385.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

June 4, 2010.

Lesley J. Miller Lowery, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michelle F. Kraus, Attorney, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge and TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Order

Our opinion in this appeal, 600 F.3d 791 (7th Cir.2010), concluded that Billian’s conviction is valid but, after identifying an error in the Guidelines calculation, ordered a limited remand “so that the district judge can tell us whether the error in converting pounds to kilograms affected the exercise of discretion in sentencing. If the judge answers yes, we will remand for a full resentencing; if the judge answers no, we will affirm Billian’s sentence.” The district judge has informed us that the error did affect Billian’s sentence. There*539fore, although Billian’s conviction is affirmed, his sentence is now vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing. The mandate will issue immediately.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14416]



[[Page 30949]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,321]


International Paper, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania; Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By letter of March 14, 2001, the petitioner (a company official), 
requests administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's 
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance applicable to workers of the subject firm. The 
notice of negative determination was published in the Federal Register 
on March 2, 2001 (66 FR 13086).
    The company presents new evidence regarding sales, production and 
employment at the subject firm.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of May 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-14416 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit 13.1
  Certification
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
    Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
    Form 20-F Form 20-F) Form 20-F
  Date: June 30, 2009

/s/ Jesús
    Reyes Heroles González
    GarzaName:     Jesús
    Reyes Heroles González Garza
    Title: Director General/Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 30, 2009

/s/ Esteban Levin
    BalcellsName:     Esteban
    Levin Balcells
    Title: Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14925]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Meeting; Sunshine Act

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Monday, June 18, 2001.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to 
the Board; 202-452-3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: June 8, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-14925 Filed 6-8-01; 3:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference, constituting a part of
the Company's  Registration  Statements on Form S-8 Registration  Statement File
No. 33-33342,  Form S-2 Registration  Statement File No. 33-68646,  and Form S-2
Registration Statement File No. 333-81282,  of our report dated October 14, 2002
relating to the 2002 consolidated  financial statements and schedule of Voxware,
Inc.,  appearing  in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-K.  Our report  contains an
explanatory  paragraph  regarding the  Company's  ability to continue as a going
concern.


/s/ WithumSmith + Brown, PC

Princeton, New Jersey
October 14, 2002
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ANDCO, INC., AND GLEN H. ANDERSEN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 203 

DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

CEA Docket No. 203 

Name: Andco, Inc., and Glen H. Andersen 

Effective on November 3, 1972. 

Order 

Effective upon the date of service of this order upon the respondents, each 

of them shall cease and desist from (1) failing to treat and deal with 

customers' funds as belonging to such customers as required by section 4d of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d); (2) failing to prepare and maintain (a) an 

accurate record as of the close of the market on each business day of the amount 

of money, securities and property which must be in segregated account in order 

to comply with the requirements of section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. 6d) and the regulations thereunder, and (b) such other books and records 

relating to dealing in commodity futures in such form and manner and for such 

period as may be required by the Secretary of Agriculture; and (3) causing, 

aiding, counseling, commanding or inducing any person to engage in any act or 

practice from which the respondents are directed to cease and desist by this 

order. A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties 

and on each contract market. 

Done at Washington, D.C. 

NOV 3 1972 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GREENE & COLLINS INC., A. LAWRENCE CARROLL, AND J. ROBERT COLLINS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 235; 75-15 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

NOTE: LATER BECAME CFTC DOCKET # 75-15 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 235 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Greene & Collins, Inc., A. Lawrence Carroll 

and J. Robert Collins 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that Greene & Collins, Inc., a registered futures 

commission merchant located in Chicago, Illinois, and A. Lawrence Carroll and J. 

Robert Collins, officers of the firm, failed to meet minimum financial 

requirements on December 31, 1973, by $ 15,000 and on January 31, 1974, by $ 

150,000. In addition, the complaint charges that the respondents fail d to 

comply with various recordkeeping and reporting regulations under the Act. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when there has been a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. A determination is considered as having been made when a 

decision of the Administrative Law Judge becomes final or, after appeal, a 

decision is made by the Judicial Officer of the Department. Complaints are 

filed in the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and 

are a matter of public record. Pending disposition of a complaint, it is the 

policy of the CEA not to comment or elaborate on charges contained therein or to 

discuss evidence on which it is based. 

A public hearing on the complaint will be held before an Administrative Law 

Judge in Chicago, Illinois, at a place, date, and time to be specified at a 

later date. 

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2008 
Page 2
[963 NE2d 1257, 940 NYS2d 556]

#### Christine M. Stuto, Appellant, v Gregory G. Kerber et al., Defendants, and William J. McNeary III et al., Respondents.

Argued January 10, 2012;

decided February 16, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cooper, Erving, Savage LLP,*Albany *(Phillip G. Steck*of counsel), for appellant.

*Driver Greene, LLP,*Albany *(John D. Hoggan, Jr.,*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Christine M. Stuto was employed by Wurld Media, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. In May 2006, after encountering financial difficulties, Wurld Media stopped paying plaintiffs salary. She continued *910working, however, in the hope that the corporation’s financial position would improve. It did not, and the corporation closed. Plaintiff thereafter obtained a judgment against Wurld Media for unpaid wages and commenced this action against Wurld Media’s 10 largest shareholders to recover the unpaid wages pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 630. Supreme Court granted the motion of three defendant shareholders to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the statute does not apply to foreign corporations, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

We agree with the courts below that the plain language and history of Business Corporation Law § 630 *(see Armstrong v Dyer,*268 NY 671 [1935]), as well as other relevant portions of the Business Corporation Law *(see*Business Corporation Law § 102 [a] [4], [7]; § 1319), reveal that section 630 applies to only domestic corporations, and not to foreign corporations.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.