alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60797

Summary Calendar

LORENZO VINCENTE-MAS, also known as Lorenzo Vincente Mas,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A078 987 314

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Lorenzo Vincente-Mas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, has asked this

court to review a final order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) based on his status as an alien present in the United States

without having been admitted or paroled, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)). Vincente-Mas argues that he is entitled to withholding of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) because of his membership in a

particular social group, namely, small land owners in San Antonio, Guatemala.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 25, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-60797 Document: 00511214133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2010
No. 09-60797

Vincente-Mas never alleged, either in his application for withholding of

removal, during his hearing before the immigration judge, or in the appeal brief

he filed with the BIA, that he was a member a particular social group comprised

of small land owners in Guatemala. Because Vincente failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies with respect to his claim, we are without jurisdiction

to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d); Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th

Cir. 2010); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-23 (5th Cir. 2009).

Alternatively, we conclude that Vincente-Mas has abandoned his claim by

failing to sufficiently brief it. Pursuant to Rule 28(a)(9)(A) of the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s argument must contain the reasons for

the requested relief with citation to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the

record upon which he relies. Vincente-Mas’s brief fails to meet this standard as

it contains self-serving, conclusional assertions unsupported by legal authority

or record citations. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003)

(holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned). Vincente-Mas has also

abandoned his claim that he was entitled to withholding of removal under the

Convention Against Torture by failing to brief it. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833.

Accordingly, Vincente-Mas’s petition for review is DENIED.

2

Case: 09-60797 Document: 00511214133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2010
Kevin D. HUDSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9659.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Shawn Donell JONES, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-5834.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

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



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 on Form 10-Q of Interstate Land Investors II Limited Partnership, (the
Limited Partnership) for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Christopher Boone, General Partner and Principal Executive
Officer, Principal Financial Officer of the Limited Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Limited Partnership. /s/ James Christopher BooneJames Christopher BoonePresident
ISC Realty Corporation,
General Partner and Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant
November 15, 2004
# C_2009090EN.01002902.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/29

---

Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Ifemy’s v OHIM — Dada & Co Kids (Dada & Co. kids)

(Case T-50/09)

2009/C 90/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ifemy’s Holding GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H.G. Augustinowski, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dada & Co Kids Srl (Prato, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2008 in case R 911/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2008 in case R 911/2008-4; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Dada & Co. kids’, for goods in class 25

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 30 114 449 of the word mark “DADA” for goods in class 25

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of the principles of equal treatment, faithful competition and rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 and 3 EC, as well as Articles 43 and 80(1) of Council Regulation 40/04 and Rules 50(2) and 80(2) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1), as the Board of Appeal failed to annul the decision of the Opposition Division which named the wrong applicant and, furthermore, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that before the Opposition Division the applicant was given every opportunity to submit the relevant evidence.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

1

---
---

Consent of Chris Sharpe

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of AuRico Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with the following
reports and documents, included in the 2012 Annual Information Form of AuRico
Gold Inc., dated April 1, 2013 (the AIF):

Dec 31st, 2012, Young-Davidson Open Pit Reserves

Dec 31st, 2012, El Chanate Open Pit Reserves

I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-177638, File No. 333-175079
and File No. 333-173458 ) and in the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (File
No. 333-177404) of the references to my name and the above-mentioned information
in the AIF.

Dated this 1stday of April, 2013.

| | /s/ Chris Sharpe         
| | -------------------------
| | By: Chris Sharpe, P. Eng.
| | Title: Manager Mining    
| | Company: AuRico Gold Inc.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                53,361,244              59,322,940
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                      53,361,244              59,322,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 527,014                 648,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,834,230              58,674,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,361,244              59,322,940
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,507,632)               3,078,837
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,507,632)               3,078,837
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,507,632)               3,078,837
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.36)                   11.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.36)                   11.00
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11683]

# ACTION:

Determination.

# SUMMARY:

The State Department is publishing a determination signed November 9, 2020 by the Secretary of State regarding the provision of military assistance to the Philippines to support counterterrorism operations.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Below is the “Determination Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to Provide Military Assistance to the Philippines to Support Counterterrorism Operations.”
      ( print page 22615)    

Stanley L. Brown,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-08110 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
Raoul A. GALAN, petitioner, v. Larry GEGENHEIMER, et al.

No. 16-8388.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 7, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
***EXHIBIT
      32.1***








**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Donald
      Katz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report on Form
      10-K of Audible Inc. Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Audible,
      Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.









March
                31, 2006
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Donald KatzDonald
                KatzChief
                Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3976 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3976

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha 
                    Franklin Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2019

 Mrs. Lawrence (for herself, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Amash, Mr. 
 Moolenaar, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Upton, Mr. Walberg, Ms. Slotkin, Mr. Levin 
 of Michigan, Mr. Mitchell, Ms. Stevens, Mrs. Dingell, and Ms. Tlaib) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Aretha 
                    Franklin Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ARETHA FRANKLIN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 12711 East Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Aretha Franklin Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Aretha 
Franklin Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
**Release :
    ������������������
    #4250-99****For Release:
    ������������
    March 31, 1999**

**CFTC FILES ENFORCEMENT ACTION
    ALLEGING COMMODITY OPTIONS FRAUD AGAINST WELLINGTON FINANCIAL GROUP,
    INC.**

**RESPONDENT ALLEGEDLY SOLICITED CUSTOMERS THROUGH INFOMERCIALS
    AND TELEPHONE SALES SOLICITATIONS**
     WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today that it has filed an administrative complaint against **Wellington Financial Group, Inc.** of Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
    alleging it has violated the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity
    Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations by fraudulently soliciting
    prospective customers to open accounts to trade options on commodity
    futures contracts.
     The CFTC complaint alleges that Wellington, a registered introducing
    broker, made false, deceptive, and misleading statements regarding the
    trading of commodity options in radio infomercials and advertisements, and
    in direct telephone solicitations of prospective customers, in violation of
    section 4c(b) of the CEA and Commission regulation 33.10.
     Specifically, the CFTC complaint alleges that Wellington fraudulently
    misrepresented, among other things, that customers who purchase options on
    futures contracts will profit from seasonal and other existing and known
    supply and demand forces that affect the prices of certain commodities in
    the cash market. The complaint further alleges that Wellington made
    fraudulent misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts
    concerning, among other things:
     --�������� the likelihood of
    profit from trading commodity options;

--�������� the risk of loss
    involved in trading commodity options; and

--�������� Wellington's
    performance record for its customers.
     In addition, the complaint alleges that 109 of approximately 120 customer
    accounts opened by Wellington from March 1997 through September 1998 lost
    money, and that total net losses, including commissions, were approximately
    $800,000.
     The CFTC's complaint institutes a public administrative proceeding to
    determine if the allegations in the complaint are true and, if so, what
    sanctions, if any, are appropriate and in the public interest. Possible
    sanctions include an order directing the respondents to cease and desist
    from violating the CEA and Commission regulations, revocation or suspension
    of Wellington's registration, civil monetary penalties of not more than the
    higher of $110,000 or triple the monetary gain for each violation, and
    restitution to customers of damages proximately caused by the violations of
    the respondent.
Skyler James FOWLER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5475.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Louis AGRE, et al., appellants, v. Thomas W. WOLF, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al.

No. 17-1339.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The appeal is dismissed as moot.
Patrick Brown THUNDER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6444.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                          BORLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 11
                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)
                           (in thousands, unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Three months ended
                                                                         June 30,
                                                                   --------------------
                                                                    1997 (2)   1996 (3)
                                                                   ---------  ---------
<S>                                                                <C>        <C>
Net income (loss)................................................  $     79    $(21,809)
 
Weighted average number of common and common equivalent
shares...........................................................    37,117      38,824
Net loss per common and common equivalent share..................  $   0.00    $   (.56)
                                                                   ========    ========
 
Calculation of number of pro forma shares:
Assume exercise of all stock options.............................     9,352
Assume repurchase of up to 20% of actual outstanding shares......    (7,449)
Add average shares outstanding during period.....................    37,117
                                                                   --------
 
Pro forma shares for EPS.........................................    39,027
                                                                   --------
 
Calculation of pro forma net income:
Net income as reported for period................................  $     79
Add after-tax interest adjustment related to assumed net option
exercises........................................................        --
                                                                   --------
Pro forma net income for EPS.....................................  $     79
 
Calculation of EPS:
Pro forma net income divided by pro forma shares.................  $   0.00
                                                                   ========
</TABLE>
(1) This exhibit should be read in conjunction with "Note 2 - Earnings (Loss)
    Per Share" of the "Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
    Statements".
(2) Calculation is dilutive, therefore, used for EPS.
(3) Calculation is antidilutive, therefore, used weighted average shares for
    EPS.
#### Coarsey-Shands, Inc., W. S. Conway and Mary Conway, his wife, G. A. McLeod and Florence McLeod, his wife, *Appellants, v.*Kissimmee Beach Land Company as Trustees for Kissimmee Beach Land Company and Roger W. Babson, *Appellees.*

Special Division A.

Decision filed February 7, 1929.

*Watson, Gaines & Saussy,*for Appellants;

*Wilson &*Swearingen, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Brown and Bueord, J. J., concur.
Danny HENINGTON, petitioner, v. ARKANSAS.

No. 17-5789.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.