alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 6539** 

CHARLES EDWARD GARY ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

DR. LAWRENCE WANG ,
Defendant

– Appellee ,
and

SHERIFF MIKE MONDUL; DANVILLE CITY JAIL; MAYOR SHERMAN SAUNDERS; DANVILLE CITY ,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Robert Stewart Ballou , Magistrate Judge. ( 7:14

- cv
- 00103

- RSB )

Submitted : June 18 , 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD , DUNCAN , and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Charles Edward Gary , Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Francis Hardt , Gary Christopher Jones, Jr. , SINNOTT, NUCKOLS & LOGAN, PC , Midlothian, Virginia, for Appelle e.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Gary appeals the magistrate judge’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge

. Gary v.

Wang , No. 7:14

- cv
- 00103

- RSB (W.D. Va. Mar

. 20, 2015). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23.1**

**ALBERT WONG & CO.**  CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS  7th Floor, Nam Dao Commercial Building  359-361 Queen’s Road Central  Hong Kong  Tel: 2851 7954  Fax: 2545 4086

**ALBERT WONG**  B.Soc., Sc., ACA., LLB.,C.P.A. (Practising)

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors  ACL Semiconductors Inc.

 

 

|                       |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Albert Wong & Co. |   |
| Hong Kong             |   |
| Dated: April 15, 2010 |   |

 

 

----
#### Leonilo Bustamante SALVADOR, aka Salvador Leonilo Bustamante, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-76064.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

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

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Leonilo Bustamante Salvador, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek adjustment of status based on an unapproved visa petition filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen spouse. We review for abuse of discretion, *Konstantinova v. INS,*195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA may grant a motion to reopen for adjustment of status based on a marriage entered into after the commencement of removal proceedings where there is clear and convincing evidence that the marriage is bona fide. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2003) (“[I]n order to qualify for the bona fide marriage exemption, an applicant must offer evidence that is probative of the motivation for marriage, not just the bare fact of getting married”); *Matter of Velarde-Pacheco,*23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256, 2002 WL *643893173 (BIA 2002) (en banc); 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(l)(iii). Here, the BIA abused its discretion when it failed to explain why it found the evidence submitted by Salvador to be insufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard. *See Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 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.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Application of
SwapEx, LLC for
Registration as a Swap Execution Facility

ORDER OF REGISTRATION

SwapEx, LLC (“SwapEx”) has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission “Commission” or “CFTC”), pursuant to Section 5h of the Commodity Exchange
Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3, and Commission Regulation 37.3(b), 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(b), an
application for registration as a swap execution facility, which includes submissions dated July
30, 2013 through December 30, 2015.

Having reviewed SwapEx’s application, the Commission HEREBY ORDERS that,
pursuant to Section 5h of the Act and Commission Regulation 37.3(b)(6)(i), SwapEx is granted
registration as a swap execution facility, subject to the terms and conditions specified herein:

(1) SwapEx shall comply with all representations and submissions made by SwapEx
in support of its application for registration as a swap execution facility, as shown in the
application record;

(2) SwapEx shall comply with all provisions of the Act and all requirements set forth
in the Commission’s regulations, as may be amended or adopted from time to time, that are
applicable to swap execution facilities, provided that, as prior relief granted by Commission staff

pursuant to Commission regulation 140.99 remains in effect:



(a) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission
Regulations 37.9(a)(2) and 37.203(a) that are addressed in CFTC Letter No. 15-24,
SwapEx shall comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No. 15-24, for the
duration set forth therein;

(b) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission
Regulations 37.6(b), 37.1000, 37.1001, 45.2(a) and 45.3(a) that are addressed in CFTC
Letter No. 15-25, SwapEx shall comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter
No, 15-25, for the duration set forth therein; and

(c) In lieu of complying with the specific requirements of Commission
Regulations 37.205(a) and 37.205(b)(2) that are addressed in CFTC Letter No. 15-68,
SwapEx shall comply with the terms and conditions of CFTC Letter No. 15-68, for the
duration set forth therein; and
(3) | SwapEx shall be responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions of this

Order of Registration, with respect to all regulatory services performed by any third party service

provider on behalf of SwapEx, within or outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on this 22nd day of January, 2016.

By the Commission

Leib | Dhctbi
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick —
Secretary of the Commission
secretary 

From: 

Sent: 

Mangold, Nathan [mangoldn@advance-trading.com] 

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11 :50 AM 

To: 

Subject: 

Mr. Secretary 

secretary 

Comments to CFTC 

Please take note of the following comments below. 

Thank you, 

Nathan Mangold 

Advance Trading, Inc 

800-664-2329 

-----Original Message-----

From: hbormann@maxyieldcoop~~ative.com 

[mailto:hbormann@maxyieldcooperative.com] 

Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 3:52 PM 

To: Mangold, Nathan 

Subject: comments to CFTC 

Mr David Stawick: 

j . 

COMMENT :::~ 

.. ~ ...... ,....-.,./ 

~.'"'') i~~ 

·~~ ,· i j''1''\ 

-----i~:: 

~:"1~'n • ;.::.:J 

MaxYield Cooperative purchases, yearly, over 80 million bu of corn & 10 million bu 

of soybeans from clients in a 10 county area of north central Iowa and southern Minnesota. 

We are wholly owned by the 2,010 farmer/members we serve. We are responding to the CFTC 

question of doubling the speculative position limits for corn & soybeans. The CBOT and now 

the CME Group, have been on a 5 year mission to get more trading volume in their 

exchanges. Current world & US market conditions should have certainly satisfied their 

volume goals. It would appear that futures to cash convergence has suffered from the 

current volume increase, doubling these limits, could force the elevator system OUT of the 

CBOT. Please refer to the National Grain & Feed Association recent comments on the 

convergence subject. As a governmental agency, the CFTC is charged with protecting the 

public interest, not just the interests of the CME Group, the Speculative Trader, or the 

Fund Traders. We respectively ask the CFTC to NOT increase the proposed spec limits. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Harry Bormann 

Grain Team Leader 

MaxYield Cooperative 

West Bend, Iowa 50597 

515-887-7211 

800-383-0083 

1
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Form 10-K of Community Bank Shares of Indiana, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Paul A Chrisco, Chief Financial Officer of Community Bank Shares of Indiana, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  Such Form 10-K for the year ended December 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 Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.








By:   /s/ Paul A. Chrisco


Paul A. Chrisco


Executive Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer





Date:  March 29, 2011





A signed original 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.





This certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1550 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 223
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1550

                          [Report No. 111-556]

    Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the 
 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2010

  Mr. Hastings of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the 
 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring 
provisions, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the 
House, without intervention of any point of order except those arising 
under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the 
Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in 
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment. 
The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final 
adoption without intervening motion.
                                                 House Calendar No. 223

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1550

                          [Report No. 111-556]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the 
 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 22, 2010

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### Jose SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1673.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 25, 2010.

Jose Slaughter, Appellant Pro Se. Lara Dee Pyne Crane, Bureau of Prisons, Beaver, West Virginia, Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Slaughter appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action, filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Slaughter that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Slaughter has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *780the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 31.2

                  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                 required by Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act.

I, Dianna Miller, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rexhall
Industries, 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:


         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: November 22, 2004             /S/  Dianna Miller
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    Dianna Miller
                                    Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ULTRADE CORPORATION, OMER D. LABRIE, MELVIN A. ROSS, AND PETER THATCHER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 180 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 180 

(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: 

Ultrade Corporation, 

Omer D. LaBrie, 

Melvin A. Ross, and 

Peter Thatcher 

(Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts) 

The complaint charges that during the period June 5, 1970 through July 15, 

1970, and on August 31, 1970, the respondent corporation while registered as a 

futures commission merchant under the Act, failed to meet minimum financial 

requirements prescribed for futures commission merchants by varying amounts 

ranging up to $ 57,000. 

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, October 21, 1971, in Boston, Massachusetts. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
" 

North America Gas and Power 

Mike O'Sullivan 

Controller 

Brian Frank 

President 

Gas & PowerCanada 

File updated: "2.7% tt If}': ~ ~ :'fMI! 

Ct\artos wa·rd 

El(~tiVe Assistant 

am Burden 

Business t:le~. & Plan~in~ 

ilrian Fral'lk•. •· VICE! PreSklenl. 

colltineni!JHitib · .. : -.. : :; : -~.;·. 

t"J~~:?:i~·J.j ._.;._ .. 

·Andy Niitemeyer 

V~Pte~rif Power: 

!~ii.. 

·is"t> '··..: .. ~.~~ 

BPPNA 000973 

Confidential Treatment 

Requested by BPPNA 
I 

Mark Radley 

NGL Trading Bench Leader 

December 2003 

1ST North America Gas & Power 

Jim Summers 

Vice President 

NGLs & Chemicals Trading 

Page 20 

Monica Cretsinger 

Administrative Assistant 1-

I 

Trading 

~ Dennis Abbott, Trudcr {Butanes & Nat Gas) 

Cody Claborn, Trader (Propane) 

Carrie Kienenberger, Trader (Ethane) 

Tim Morby, Trader (Midcon) 

I 

Asset Optimization 

~ John Caldwell, Asset Trader (Waterborne LPGs) 

Marlene Lojas. Asset Tmdcr (Chemicals) 

George Fercday, Asset TrJder(S Perf Unit) 

Scott Robinson, Asset Trader (S Perf lJ nit) 

l 

Anatysio 

'-Jon Wolfe, Tmding Analyst (Chullenger) 

BPPNA 000993 

Contidcntial Treatment 

Requested by BPPNA
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, J. Jeffrey Meder,certify that:

1.          Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Cost-U-Less, Inc.;

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

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

             (a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

             (b)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

             (c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

             (a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

             (b)          Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  August 9, 2004