alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6630
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NORMAN LEE GROOMS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CR-91-5-C, CV-95-37-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Lee Grooms, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge with appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Grooms v. United States , No. CR-91-5-C; CV-95-37-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 23, 1996). 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
Adam HAMMOND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9363.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Carol Jean SING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6289.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Aaron SANDUSKY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6750.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

HSIU CHU LIANG 

v. CFTC Docket No. 09-R015 

FCSTONELLC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Commission on review of the judgment officer's May 25, 2010, 

order finding no liability on the part ofFC Stone LLC, and dismissing Hsiu Chu Liang's 

complaint. Our review of the record and the complainant's appellate submission establishes that, 

with respect to the May 25, 2010, order, the judgment officer committed no error material to the 

outcome of the proceedings and that the findings of the judgment officer are suppmied by the 

weight of the evidence. In addition, complainant has not raised important questions of law or 

policy that merit extended discussion. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 14 of the Commodity 

Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 12.406(b), we summarily affirm the May 25, 2010, 

initial decision and order of the judgment officer without opinion. 1 

Also pmi ofthe record ofthis matter is the judgment officer's January 7, 2011, order 

vacating the default judgment entered March 26, 2010, against Michael Chen. The January 7, 

2011, order is hereby reversed. 

1 Pursuant to Commission Regulation 12.406(b), 17 C.P.R. § 406(b), neither the initial decision nor the 

Commission's order of summary affirmance shall serve as a Commission precedent in other proceedings. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 

By the Commission (Chairman GENSLER and Commissioners CHILTON, O'MALIA and 

WETJEN). 

Melissa D. Jurgens 

Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: January 3, 2014 

2 Under Sections 6(c) and 14(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 18(e)(2000), a pmty may 

appeal a reparation order of the Commission to the United States Court of Appeals for only the circuit in which a 

hearing was held; if no hearing was held, the appeal may be filed in any circuit in which the appellee is located. The 

Commission has ruled that telephonic hearings are "held" in Washington, D.C., although patties may speak from 

several different locations. Dubois v. Alar011, [2000-2002 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 28,406 at 

51,027 n.17 (CFTC Oct. 26, 2000). The statute also states that such an appeal must be filed within 15 days after 

notice of the order and that any appeal is not effective unless, within 30 days of the date of the Commission order, 

the appealing party files with the court a bond equal to double the amount of any reparation award. ··
GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE, petitioner, v. NEWCO LIMITED.

No. 16-135.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Christopher SAUNDERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6648.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

*601Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1727 

Recognizing Rotary International for 105 years of service to the world and 

commending members on their dedication to the mission and principles 

of their organization. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2010 

Mr. SMITH of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing Rotary International for 105 years of service 

to the world and commending members on their dedication to the mission and principles of their organization. 

Whereas the mission of Rotary International is to provide 

service to others, promote integrity, and advance world 

understanding, goodwill, and peace through its fellowship 

of business, professional, and community leaders; 

Whereas Rotary International, founded in 1905, in Chicago, 

Illinois, is the world’s first service club and one of the 

largest nonprofit service organizations; 

Whereas there are more than 1,200,000 Rotary International 

club members comprised of professional, community, and 

business leaders in more than 34,000 clubs in over 200 

countries and geographical areas; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1727 IH 

Whereas the Rotary International motto, ‘‘Service Above 

Self’’, inspires members to provide humanitarian service, 

meet high ethical standards, and promote international 

goodwill and peace; 

Whereas Rotary International promotes international understanding through scholarships, exchange programs, humanitarian grants, and service projects; 

Whereas annual dues from members worldwide help finance 

Rotary programs and service opportunities that are designed to help Rotarians meet the needs of their own 

communities and assist people worldwide; 

Whereas the core values of Rotary International are service, 

fellowship, diversity, integrity, and leadership; and 

Whereas the Four-Way Test of Rotary International promotes universal values and asks the following questions, 

‘‘Of the things we think, say or do: Is it the truth?; Is 

it fair to all concerned?; Will it build goodwill and better 

friendships?; and Will it be beneficial to all concerned?’’: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes Rotary International for 105 years of service to the 

3 world and commends members on their dedication to the 

4 mission and principles of their organization. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         141,188
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,698
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (118,070)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      48,100,116
<DEPRECIATION>                             (24,717,392)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,107,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,810,561
<BONDS>                                     50,086,596
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (12,789,744)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,107,413
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,137,941
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,302,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             945,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (729,803)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (729,803)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (729,803)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (4.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (4.14)
        

</TABLE>
J & K ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., et al., petitioners, v. Neffertiti ROBINSON, et al.

No. 16-95.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2013071EN.01000201.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-529/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid incompatible with the common market - Obligation of recovery - Failure to comply with a Commission Decision - Objection of inadmissibility - Res judicata by means of a previous judgment of the Court)

2013/C 71/02

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 288 TFEU and of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15) — Aid granted to Industrias Domésticas, S.A. (Indosa)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors, as regards the undertaking Industrias Domésticas SA, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors, as regards the undertaking Industrias Domésticas SA, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT 4.20


 


Letter of Consent 


 


I, Kai Wang (ID Card No.: 41050419821217106X),
am the duly married spouse of Kuan Song (ID Card No.: 410503198209212012). I hereby acknowledge, understand and agree that:


 


1. In accordance with the Equity Pledge
Agreement he signed on May 27, 2015, Kuan Song pledges to Acorn Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 90% of the equity interest
he holds in Shanghai Acorn Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Network”) and in Beijing Acorn Trade
Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Acorn”), respectively.


 


2. In accordance with the provisions of
the Exclusive Purchase Agreement entered into on May 27, 2015, Kuan Song irrevocably grants Acorn Information Technology (Shanghai)
Co., Ltd. the right to at any time purchase or designate any third party to purchase all or part of the equity interest he holds
in Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn and I have no objections against the above grant and its exercise.


 


3. In accordance with the Power of Attorney
he signed on May 27, 2015, Kuan Song irrevocably grants Gao Weiji his shareholder’s voting right at the shareholders’
meetings of Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn, including but not limited with respect to the sale or transfer of all or any part
of the equity interest he holds in Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn, and his right to vote on such matters as the designation
or appointment of a director of the company at the shareholders’ meetings of Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn.


 


4. I have no objections against the equity
pledge, the exclusive right to purchase, and the setup, grant and exercise of the Power of Attorney as described above and acknowledge
that I will not now or in the future assert any claims or take any actions that would oppose, prevent or hinder the exercise of
any of the above rights.


 


	 	/s/ Kai Wang (Signature)
	 	 
	 	May 27, 2015
Jeffrey GARRISON, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-6674.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15424]



[[Page 32933]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1176]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status Matsushita Kotobuki 
Electronics Industries of America, Inc. (TV/VCR Combination Units), 
Vancouver, WA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Port of Tacoma, Washington, grantee of FTZ 86, has 
made application to the Board for authority to establish special-
purpose subzone status at the manufacturing facilities (9- and 13-inch 
television/video cassette recorder combination units) of Matsushita 
Kotobuki Electronics Industries of America, Inc. (MKA), located at 
sites in Vancouver, Washington (FTZ Docket 46-2000, filed 8/2/2000);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (65 FR 49536, 8/14/2000); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the 
application would be in the public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the 9- and 13-inch TV/VCR unit manufacturing facilities of 
Matsushita Kotobuki Electronics Industries of America, Inc. in 
Vancouver, Washington (Subzone 86E), at the locations described in the 
application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of June 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15424 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Fredric HAYWOOD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6612.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Daniel COX, petitioner, v. Ronald J. RACKLEY, Warden.

No. 16-5765.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: FOX DELUXE FOODS, INC., ROLAND N. GERGEN, HAROLD W. FOX, AND BERT E. FOX, 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 74 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET No. 74 

(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: 

Fox DeLuxe Foods, Inc., 

Roland N. Gergen, 

Harold W. Fox, and 

Bert E. Fox, 

Chicago, Illinois. 

The complaint charges attempted manipulation and manipulation of the price of 

cash refrigerator eggs in Chicago, and of egg futures on the Chicago Mercantile 

Exchange, in December 1953 and January 1956. It is alleged that Fox DeLuxe 

Foods, Inc. concentrated in its own hands and those of its affiliates and 

customers a quantity of egg futures comprising the major portion of the open 

interest and in excess of supplies of refrigerator eggs available for delivery, 

with the intent and expectation that its customers would be influenced by, and 

would rely upon, the respondents' example, advice, and superior knowledge of 

trading techniques and would follow their lead. It is further alleged that the 

respondents purchased, or directed the purchase of, cash eggs on the Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange for the purpose of increasing or preventing a decrease in 

futures prices. 

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., central daylight saving time, on August 28, 1956, at Chicago, 

Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
# C_2011063EN.01002403.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 December 2010 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Ried i.I. (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Formato, Lenka Rohackova, Torsten Kuntz, Gardel Jong Aten, Hubert Kanatschnig, Jarmila Szabova, Zdenka Powerova, Nousia Nettuno

(Case C-116/09) (1)

1

2011/C 63/45

Language of the case: German

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

1

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIRGILIO GUERRA-MOLINA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71162

Agency No. A078-677-068

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Virgilio Guerra-Molina, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

FILED

JUL 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71162

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. 

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that even if GuerraMolina established past persecution, the government rebutted the presumption of a

well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence he could reasonably relocate

within Guatemala to avoid harm. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d

995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of well-founded fear can be rebutted if the

government can show the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate). 

Accordingly, Guerra-Molina’s asylum claim fails.

Because Guerra-Molina failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he

necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief

because Guerra-Molina failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be

tortured and failed to present substantial grounds for believing he would be unable

to live elsewhere in Guatemala safely. See Hasan v, Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114,

1123 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.