alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Fidelity**®**Total Emerging Markets Fund
**Class**/Ticker

**Fidelity Total Emerging Markets Fund**/FTEMX

In this summary prospectus, the term "shares" (as it relates to the fund) means the class of shares offered through this summaryprospectus.

**Summary Prospectus**

**October 17, 2011****
#### Ray McKinley BOWEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Darrell G. ADAMS, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-16353.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 5, 2010.

Daniel J. Broderick, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Kathleen Anne McKenna, William Ke-Wei Kim, Office of the California Attorney General, Fresno, CA, for Respondents-Ap-pellees.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Ray McKinley Bowen appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his jury-trial conviction for kidnapping, making a criminal threat, and inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, for which he was sentenced to *19823 years, four months in prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

Bowen contends that the trial court’s selection of an upper-term sentence on the kidnapping count violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as established in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348,147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). *See Cunningham v. California,*549 U.S. 270, 288-89, 293, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007) (holding that California’s determinate sentencing law, permitting imposition of an upper-term sentence on the basis of aggravating circumstances not found by the jury, “violates *Apprendi’s*bright-line rule”).

It is unnecessary to decide whether Bowen’s kidnapping sentence was imposed in violation of *Apprendi*because any error was harmless in light of Bowen’s undisputed history of parole and probation violations, on which the trial court relied in part in setting Bowen’s sentence. *See Butler v. Curry,*528 F.3d 624, 642, 648 (9th Cir.2008) (“Any *Apprendi*error [is] harmless if it is not prejudicial as to just one of the aggravating factors at issue[,]” as the presence of one such factor serves to “set the upper term as the statutory maximum.”). In determining harmlessness, the question is not, as Bowen suggests, whether the trial court would have imposed an upper-term sentence on the basis of just one aggravating factor; it is rather whether the jury would likely have found one such factor beyond a reasonable doubt. *See Butler,*528 F.3d at 648-49. Because there can be no question that the jury would have found Bowen’s history of parole and probation violations established beyond a reasonable doubt, any *Apprendi*error did not have a “substantial and injurious effect” on Bowen’s sentence. *See Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 638, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 99(a)





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - September 13, 2000

CONTACT:       Linda A. Pleiman
               Director - Investor Relations & Corporate
Communications
               lpleiman@nsgrouponline.com


       NS GROUP, INC. ANNOUNCES SALE OF IMPERIAL ADHESIVES


Newport, Kentucky - NS Group, Inc. announced today that it has
entered into an Agreement to sell for cash, its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Imperial Adhesives, Inc.,  to Sovereign Specialty
Chemicals, Inc. for approximately $27 million.  The transaction
is subject to customary closing conditions, including antitrust
approval under HSR.

Mr. Rene J. Robichaud, President and CEO of NS Group, Inc.
stated, "This is a real win-win situation for NS Group and
Imperial.  It allows us to redeploy a significant amount of
capital while placing Imperial in a growth environment with
Sovereign."

Imperial Adhesives was purchased by NS Group in 1985 and
represents approximately 10% of  its net sales.

NS Group, Inc. is a leading producer of tubular products serving
the energy industry and certain industrial markets.  The Company
manufactures seamless and welded tubular steel products which are
used in the drilling and transmission of oil and natural gas.  NS
Group's industrial products include special bar quality (SBQ)
products used in critical weight bearing applications.  Log on to
www.nsgrouponline.com to learn more about NS Group, Inc.

Sovereign Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a leading developer,
marketer and distributor of high-performance specialty adhesives,
sealants and coatings that are utilized in a variety of
industrial and commercial applications.  Headquartered in
Chicago, Sovereign was founded by Robert Covalt and a group of
private investors in 1996.  Sovereign has grown organically and
through acquisitions, becoming one of the premier companies in
its field.
#### Gabriel MARTINEZ GAMINO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72203.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

Phyllis A. Beech, Beech Law Firm, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Hillel Smith Fax, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gabriel Martinez Gamino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of *689the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision because Martinez Gamino failed to demonstrate that his fear of persecution is on account of a protected social group. *See Ochoa v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 1166, 1170-71 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Martinez Gamino is not eligible for asylum.

Because Martinez Gamino failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See id.*at 1172.

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Martinez Gamino did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Mexico. *See Gui v. INS,*280 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir.2002).

The IJ granted voluntary departure for a 60-day period and the BIA streamlined and changed the voluntary departure period to 30 days. In *Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales,*463 F.3d 972, 981 (9th Cir.2006), the Ninth Circuit held “that because the BIA issued a streamlined order, it was required to affirm the entirety of the IJ’s decision, including the length of the voluntary departure period.” We therefore remand to the agency for further proceedings regarding voluntary departure.

DENIED in part; GRANTED in part and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *689courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the December
31, 1997 (audited)  financial  statements of Medjet Inc. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                            <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                           1,491,040   
<SECURITIES>                             0   
<RECEIVABLES>                            0   
<ALLOWANCES>                             0   
<INVENTORY>                              0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 1,554,763   
<PP&E>                             369,094   
<DEPRECIATION>                     180,025   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,862,258   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              220,493   
<BONDS>                                  0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0   
<PREFERRED>                              0   
<COMMON>                             3,709   
<OTHER-SE>                       1,634,358   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,862,258   
<SALES>                                  0   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         0   
<CGS>                                    0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 2,719,984   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   5,833   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,578,248)  
<INCOME-TAX>                           200   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2,578,448)  
<DISCONTINUED>                           0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0   
<CHANGES>                                0   
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,578,448)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.70)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.69)  
                               




</TABLE>
In re Wilma PENNINGTON-THURMAN, petitioner.

No. 15-9470.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 23.2








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm














We have issued our report, dated February 25, 2013 (except for the effects of the immaterial error correction disclosed in Note B and except as it relates to segment information disclosed in Note S, as to which the date is March 2, 2015), with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Rent-A-Center, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the following Registration Statements of Rent-A-Center, Inc.:





File  Effective


Form Type  Number  Date





Form S-8  333-53471  05/22/1998


Form S-8  333-66645  11/02/1998


Form S-8  333-32296  03/13/2000


Form S-8  333-62582  06/08/2001


Form S-8  333-136615  08/14/2006


Form S-8  333-139792  01/04/2007


Form S-8  333-40958  07/07/2007


Form S-8  333-145121  08/03/2007


Form S-8  333-171926  01/28/2011











/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP








Dallas, Texas


March 2, 2015
Lewis ANDERSON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-5731.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two denied.
----

----

I Acts whose publication is obligatory

----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1571/2004

of 6 September 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 September 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 September 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 6 September 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
Consuelo JORDAN, petitioner, v. Jasper ORMOND.

No. 16-6319.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Timothy M. COUGHLIN, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-5746.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00079-CV

In re Harlan Levien, Stephen Levien, Kenneth Ives, and Parvin Johnson, Jr.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BASTROP COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relators Harlan Levien, Stephen Levien, Kenneth Ives, and Parvin Johnson, Jr., have

filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of the district court’s January 23, 2018 order

compelling production of an email communication and filed a motion for emergency relief asking

this Court to stay the order pending resolution of their petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R.

App. P. 52.1-.3, .10. We grant the motion for emergency relief and stay the district court’s order

pending further order of this Court. See id. R. 52.10. The real parties in interest, Kenneth Levien,

BarryLevien, and Philip Levien, are requested to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus

on or before March 8, 2018.

It is ordered February 7, 2018.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland
No. 794.

#### Union Trust Co. *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir.

*Luden L. Dunbar*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Caudle,. Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson, L. W. Post*and *Joseph W. Bishop, Jr.*for the United States.

Certiorari denied.
1147.

#### FUDGE *v.*KELLY.

Mere breach of warranty will not authorize the rescission of a horse-swap; fraud usually will. Material false representations as to existing conditions are usually fraudulent, as contradistinguished from guarantees for the future, which are merely warranties. *Barnett*v. *Speir,*93 *Ga.*762 (21 S. B. 168) ; *Johnson*v. *Earley,*121 *Ga.*83 (48 S. E. 685).

Trover, from city court of Miller county — -Judge Bush. February 25, 1908.

Submitted July 2,

Decided July 25, 1908.

On rehearing, decided July 31, 1908.

*W. I. Geer,*for plaintiff in error. P. *D. Rich,*contra.

Powell, J.

(Upon rehearing.) In the original decision of this case (on which a judgment of affirmance was rendered) we made a plain, palpable error. We are glad it has been called to *631our attention before it is beyond our power to correct it. Indeed, in any case, there is nobody’s error that we shall be less reluctant to correct than our own, if we shall be able to see the latter in time legally to do so.

The plaintiff in this case claimed that in swapping horses with the defendant, the latter represented to him, in substance, that his animal was free from incumbrance. It appears from the record that the horse so received by the plaintiff in exchange for his own was, soon after the swap, seized by a constable, under some sort of process, and the plaintiff thereupon sued the defendant for the horse the latter had received in the trade. In the argument here both sides stressed their respective contentions as to the law governing the ease, as if there were no question that the process by which the constable seized the horse was an incumbrance upon it at the time of the trade; and on this hypothesis we decided the case. It is true, however, that the plaintiff in error in his brief has a general statement broad enough to raise the point that the plaintiff failed to make out a case. Upon a closer examination of the brief of the evidence, we find that it does not affirmatively appear that the lien or process by which the constable seized the horse was an incumbrance upon it at the date of the trade. The showing of this fact was a prerequisite to a recovery by the plaintiff; the verdict in his favor was, therefore, contrary to the evidence. The proposition of law announced in the foregoing headnote, which constituted the original opinion filed in the case, is sound; but the judgment should be reversed for the reason herein indicated. The judgment of affirmance is therefore withdrawn, and a judgment of reversal awarded instead.

*Judgment reversed.*
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1627 

Recognizing the 110th anniversary of the Northwest Labor Press. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 

Mr. WU submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 110th anniversary of the Northwest Labor 

Press. 

Whereas, in 1900, the first issue of the Northwest Labor 

Press was published as the Portland Labor Press; 

Whereas the paper changed its name to the Oregon Labor 

Press in 1915, and to the Northwest Labor Press in 

1986 to better describe its growing readership and coverage area; 

Whereas the Northwest Labor Press was founded to deliver 

news, editorials, and information about issues that affect 

organized labor in the Pacific Northwest; 

Whereas the Northwest Labor Press is one of the oldest continuous publications dedicated to union news in the 

United States; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1627 IH 

Whereas the Northwest Labor Press has the third largest 

paid circulation in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan 

area with nearly 60,000 subscribers; 

Whereas, for 110 years, the Northwest Labor Press has been 

instrumental in providing news and information in print 

and online to workers and retirees around the Pacific 

Northwest that goes unreported by other media; 

Whereas the Northwest Labor Press is committed to protecting a worker’s right to organize by providing an avenue for open communications between union members 

and the labor community as a whole; encouraging the 

purchase and use of union-made goods and services; and 

endorsing State, local, and Federal policies that support 

workers; 

Whereas, in 1910, the Labor Press added a column on women’s interests that later focused on news about women’s 

suffrage and other civil rights; 

Whereas the Labor Press continues to provide a comprehensive calendar of union meetings for workers in the Northwest; and 

Whereas the Northwest Labor Press is a national model for 

quality, in-depth reporting on labor issues: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the 110th anniversary of the Northwest Labor Press. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection  with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report") of Wells  Financial  Corp.  (the  "Company") as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Lonnie
R. Trasamar, President and Chief Executive Officer, and James D. Moll, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer,  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) 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.


Date:  March 19, 2004



/s/Lonnie R. Trasamar                      /s/James D. Moll
-------------------------------------      -------------------------------------
Lonnie R. Trasamar                         James D. Moll
President and Chief Executive Officer      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1191/2004

of 28 June 2004         

fixing the export refunds on malt

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 13(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on malt listed in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 June 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003 (OJ L 158, 27.6.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 28 June 2004 fixing the export refunds on malt

----
Opinion issued December 1 2 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 9 - 00 577 - CV

——————————— MOHAMAD K. JRAB , Appellant

V. JOHNS T ON, LLC, JOSEPH ALAN JOHNSTON, JR. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2018 - 05793

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mohamad K. Jrab , and Appellees, Johnston, LLC, and Joseph Alan Johnston Jr., have filed letters notifying this Court that “the parties have settled the underlying dispute in full at mediation [.] ” The Clerk of this Court issued a notice of2

intent to dismiss for want of ju risdiction , and ten days have passed with no response

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42

. 3 (a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Goodman , and Countiss.
Augustine DeCRUZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6298.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.