alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Michael Dendrix Davis

February 26, 1991

By JUDGE RICHARD S. MILLER

In the captioned case, tried on February 7, 1991, and by agreement of counsel, heard at the same time on the defendant’s motion to suppress, I will sustain the motion to suppress.

The pivotal question in the case is whether under the circumstances there was a seizure of Davis’s person. A "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment takes place when "circumstances .... amount to a show of official authority such that ‘a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave’." *Florida*v. *Royer,*460 U.S. 491, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983); *Moss*v. *Commonwealth,*7 Va. App. 305 (1988). In the captioned case, I find that Officer Stokes walked away from conducting a lawfully established road check during daylight and approached the defendant who had lawfully parked his vehicle and who was walking towards Stokes. At this point, Officer Stokes had no articulable suspicion which would justify his detaining or making an investigatory stop of Davis. *See, Murphy v. Commonwealth,*9 Va. App. 139 (1989). Stokes then stopped Davis and said to him, "Could I see your driver’s license." Officer Stokes was in police uniform and also had on an "orange traffic vest that says police on it." (Tr. p. 15, lines 17-19). The roadcheck in the middle of the street had "traffic cones" setting on the double yellow line where cars were being stopped. (Tr. p. *17718, lines 2-6). After being asked, for his operator’s license, Davis became very nervous. (Tr. p. 14, lines 25 through p. 15, line 9) (Tr. p. 19, line 15 through p. 20, line 3). There was no discussion at this point as to whether Davis was free to leave or to walk away. (Tr. p. 19, line 15-24).

Based on the totality of all of the above circumstances, I find that there was an official show of authority such that Davis would not have reasonably believed that he was free to leave. *See, Brown v. Texas,*443 U.S. 47 (1979), where the Court held that, "[i]n the absence of any basis for suspecting [the defendant] of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and [defendant’s] personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference." at p. 52.
No. 598.

#### Twin Falls Land *&*Water Co. *v.*Twin Falls Canal Co.

January 6, 1936.

*Messrs. W. G. Bissell*and *Branch Bird*for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2
 OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for INREIT Real Estate Investment Trust.
 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.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-5(e) and 15d-15 (e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:
     5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    By:
    /s/  Peter J. WingerChief Financial Officer
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 SiriCOMM, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Grannell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Mark L. Grannell                                            

Mark L. Grannell 

Chief Executive Officer 

May 21, 2007

 

A signed original of this certification 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0365 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DONNA ELIZABETH SUMMERS,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 21 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 16 2024

01/16/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0365
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Ethel E. Gleason.

November 16, 1936.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOANDARK KASSAB,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

MR. D ’ S LIQUOR AND DELI, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.

,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 55621

D.C. No. 3:17

- cv

- 00399

- DMS

- NLS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Joandark Kassab a ppeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

* 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

JUN 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 55621

in her action seeking judicial review of the United States Department of

A griculture Food and Nutrition Service’s (“FNS”) final decision imposing a civil

penalty following Kassab’s sale of a store that had previously been disqualified

from participating in the federal food stamp program

. We review de novo the

district court ’ s l egal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Wong v.

United States , 859 F.2d 129, 131 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kassab failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was allowed to sell her

store without penal ty after it was permanently disqualified for trafficking in

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits. See 7 U.S.C.

§ 2021(e)(1) ( a person who sells or otherwise transfers ownership of a store that

has been disqualified from participating in the SNAP program “shall be subjected

to a civil penalty in an amount established by the Secretary ” ) ; 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(g)

( method by which FNS determines amount of civ il penalties for transfer of

ownership); see also Kim v. United States , 121 F.3d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997)

(holding that under the Food Stamp Act “even innocent owners” may be

disqualified permanently for trafficking violations)

.

The district court did no t abuse its discretion in denying Kassab’s motion for

reconsideration because Kassab failed to establish any basis for such relief. See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 633 19

- 55621

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard o f review and grounds for reconsideration).

Kassab is not entitled to reversal of the district court’s summary judgment

based on her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Nicholson v. Rushen

,

767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no

right to effective assistance of counsel.”)

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appea l. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shannon HOLLISTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30536.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 11, 2008.

Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Bruce F. Mi-yake, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paula S. Deutsch, Esq., Corey Endo, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Shannon Hollister appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for interstate murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hollister contends that the district court’s analysis of the sentencing factors set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) was inadequate and that the district court failed to resolve factual issues, including the nature of her mental disorder, before imposing her sentence. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597-99, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 994-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RAYMOND A. GERSTENBERG, RAYMOND M. GERSTENBERG, GERSTENBERG & CO., AND 

JOHN W. DICKSON. JR. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 141 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 141 

(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: 

Raymond A. Gerstenberg, 

Raymond M. Gerstenberg, 

Gerstenberg & Co., and 

John W. Dickson, Jr. 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that during the period from February 16, 1965, through 

December 20, 1965, Raymond A. Gerstenberg and Raymond M. Gerstenberg, acting for 

themselves and in their capacities as partners of Gerstenberg & Co., entered 

into fictitious transactions and bucketed customers' orders. In addition, the 

partnership is charged with taking the other side of a customer's trade without 

the prior consent of such customer. The complaint also charges that John W. 

Dickson, Jr., entered into a fictitious sale and that all of the respondents 

prepared false records and maintained incomplete records. 

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., local time, January 18, 1967, in Chicago, Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### Araceli ESTRADA-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73802.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 8, 2006 *.

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

Frederick P.S. Whang, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Christopher Lee Pickrell, Esq., Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Araceli Estrada-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, filed a petition for writ of *690habeas corpus in the district court. Since Estrada-Delgado’s petition was pending in the district court at the time the Real ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, § 106(c), became effective, her habeas petition was transferred to this court as a petition for review. *See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales,*418 F.3d 1050, 1052-53 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss the petition.

Estrada-Delgado contends that she is entitled to equitable tolling of her voluntary departure deadline because she failed to depart in accordance with the terms of her voluntary departure order due to the erroneous advice of an immigration officer. Estrada-Delgado does not challenge the underlying merits of her deportation order but seeks only the opportunity to voluntarily depart and avoid deportation. Because “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to ... execute removal orders,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), we lack jurisdiction to consider her claim.

Even if we had jurisdiction, Estrada-Delgado would not be entitled to equitable tolling. Equitable tolling normally stops a limitations period from running during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error. *See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2002) (equitable waiver of numerical limit on motion to reopen); *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1193-94 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (tolling of 90-day deadline to file motion to reopen). Assuming that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to toll the time period in which an alien must depart the United States pursuant to an order allowing voluntary departure, Estrada-Delgado has not shown due diligence. More than eight years passed between her March 18, 1996, voluntary departure deadline and her arrest in September 2004, and she has not alleged any attempts to inquire into her immigration status before her arrest.

PETITION DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 501.

#### Aladdin Manufacturing Co. *v.*Mantle Lamp Co.

November 11, 1935.

*Mr. Alvin E. Stein*for petitioner.

*Mr. George I. Haight*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### William A. TACCINO; Marlene M. Taccino, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOMEQ SERVICING; Mancini & Associates; U.S. Bank n/a; Morris Schneider Pryor Johnson & Freedman, LLC; G. Douglas Reinhard; Rick Conner; Express Mortgage Financial Services, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1260.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 16, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 26, 2010.

William A. Taccino, Marlene M. Taccino, Appellants Pro Se. Wendy Anne Owens, Law Office of Wendy A. Owens, PC, Savannah, Georgia; Marshall Howard Ross, Wharton, Aldhizer *&*Weaver, PLC, Harri-sonburg, Virginia; Jason Patrick Foster, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William A. Taccino and Marlene M. Tac-cino appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Taccino v. Homeq Serv.,*No. 3:08-cv-00185-JPB (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 18, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
----

----

I Säädökset, jotka on julkaistava

Neuvosto

----

NEUVOSTON ASETUS (EY) N:o 1241/2004,

annettu 5 päivänä heinäkuuta 2004,

tiettyihin teollisuus-, maatalous- ja kalastustuotteisiin sovellettavien yhteisen tullitariffin autonomisten tullien väliaikaisesta suspendoimisesta annetun asetuksen (EY) N:o 1255/96 muuttamisesta

EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, joka

ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen ja erityisesti sen 26 artiklan,

ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen,

sekä katsoo seuraavaa:

ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN:

1 artikla

Muutetaan asetuksen (EY) N:o 1255/96 liite seuraavasti:

2 artikla

Tämä asetus tulee voimaan kolmantena päivänä sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä.

Sitä sovelletaan 1 päivästä heinäkuuta 2004.

Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa.

Tehty Brysselissä 5 päivänä heinäkuuta 2004.

Neuvoston puolesta

Puheenjohtaja

G. ZALM

----

(1)EYVL L 158, 29.6.1996, s. 1, asetus sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2285/2003 (EUVL L 341, 30.12.2003, s. 1).

----

LIITE I

----

(1)  Erityiskäyttöä on valvottava asiaa koskevien yhteisön säännösten nojalla.

----

LIITE II

----
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1354 

Honoring the John G. Shedd Aquarium on the occasion of its 80th anniversary and the 10th anniversary of its award-winning ‘‘Amazon Rising’’ 

exhibit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2010 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the John G. Shedd Aquarium on the occasion 

of its 80th anniversary and the 10th anniversary of 

its award-winning ‘‘Amazon Rising’’ exhibit. 

Whereas, on May 30, 2010, the venerable John G. Shedd 

Aquarium will celebrate its 80th anniversary as one of 

the most respected cultural, conservation, and educational institutions in Chicago, Illinois; 

Whereas the John G. Shedd Aquarium has welcomed 

100,000,000 guests since opening its doors in 1930, making it one of Chicago’s most visited cultural attractions 

and a landmark icon; 

Whereas, on June 17, 2010, the John G. Shedd Aquarium 

will commemorate the 10th anniversary of its award-winning ‘‘Amazon Rising’’ exhibit, which connects guests to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1354 IH 

South America’s Amazon River flood plain ecosystem, its 

animals, and inhabitants; 

Whereas the John G. Shedd Aquarium meticulously cares for 

more than 32,000 animals and over 1,500 species; and 

Whereas for 80 years, the John G. Shedd Aquarium has educated the children of the United States, protected and 

preserved the environment, attracted people from around 

the world to visit the City of Chicago, and has contributed greatly to Chicago’s strong economy and job opportunity: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the tremendous contributions the John G. Shedd 

3 Aquarium has made to the State of Illinois as a distin4 guished cultural, scientific, conservation, and educational 

5 institution, as well as an economic engine for the City of 

6 Chicago, the State of Illinois, and the region. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 *Title:*
                     Financial Institution Data Match *OMB No.:*
                     0970-0196 *Description:*
                     Section 466(a)(17) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as added by section 372 of Public Law 104-193, requires States to establish procedures under which the State child support enforcement (IV-D) agency shall enter into agreements with financial institutions doing business in the State for the purpose of securing information leading to the enforcement of child support orders. *Respondents:*
                     Financial Institutions **Annual Burden**
Instrument
Number of respondents
Number of responses per respondent
Average burden hours per response
Total burden hoursFinancial data match tape
4233
4
.5
8466Election form
241
1
.5
120.5Estimated total annual burden hours



8586.5
 *Additional Information*
                     Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. *OMB Comment:*
                     OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Attn: Desk Officer for ACF. Dated: June 6, 2001. Bob Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. 01-14597 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M