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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20749

Summary Calendar

MANUEL SERJIO BANUELOS AMAYA,

Petitioner – Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent – Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CV-4130

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Manuel Serjio Banuelos Amaya appeals the denial of his motion filed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) that challenges a removal

order. Amaya also seeks a stay of deportation and a writ of mandamus.

The district court construed Amaya’s motion as seeking relief from its

judgment dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and

denied the motion as untimely. Though styled as a motion seeking relief from

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), Amaya sought relief from the removal order,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 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: 09-20749 Document: 00511150576 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
No. 09-20749

not the district court’s judgment. Therefore, his motion was in substance an

attack on the removal order.

A district court lacks jurisdiction over a pleading attacking a removal

order. Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 426 F.3d 733,

735-36 (5th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). We will not entertain Amaya’s

repetitive Rule 60(b) motion. Cf. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th

Cir. 1994); Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1203-04 (5th Cir.

1993).

Amaya’s motion for a stay of deportation is also denied. “[A] petition for

review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . [is] the sole and exclusive

means for judicial review of an order of removal. . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).

Although we have authority to stay a removal order pending consideration of a

petition for review of a removal order, see Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756-

57 (2009), Amaya has not filed a petition for review with this court.

Because the district court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief Amaya

seeks, his petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. See Jones v. Alexander, 609

F.2d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 1980).

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; MANDAMUS PETITION

DENIED.

2

Case: 09-20749 Document: 00511150576 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
Raphael GOLB, petitioner, v. Eric T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of New York.

No. 17-814.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 10.15

THIS AGREEMENT made as of September 3, 1999

BETWEEN:

VIBRO-TECH INDUSTRIES INC., a corporation subsisting under the laws of the state
of Delaware, having a place of business at Suite 201-11240 Bridgeport Road,
Richmond, British Columbia V6X 1T2

                                (the "Company")

AND:

DR. FOO. LIN ZHOU, of Shantou City, Guangdong Province, China

                                    ("Zhou")

WHEREAS:

A. By an agreement dated August 25, 1998 Zhou assigned certain patents and
related technology to the Company in consideration that the Company issue to
Zhou or his nominee:

     (a)  2,000,000 shares on execution of the agreement of August 25, 1998;

     (b)  1,000,000 shares on September 1, 1999;

     (c)  1,000,000 shares on September 2000; and

     (d)  1,000,000 shares on September 1, 2001;

B. The Company is proceeding to register with the Securities & Exchange
Commission of the United States;

WITNESSES THAT the parties mutually covenant and agree as follows:

1.0 The Company covenants that it has issued in the name of Pioneer Wise, and
Zhou acknowledges the issuance of, the 2,000,000 shares issued on execution of
the agreement of August 25, 1998.

2.0 The obligation of the Company to issue the remaining 3,00,000 share to Zhou
is cancelled and voided without the payment of any amount to Zhou.

3.0 As Zhou modifies products that are the subject of patents, or develops new
products that are the subject of patents, the Company will agree from time to
time with Zhou about the consideration to be paid for such modifications of new
products.

<PAGE>


4.0 The agreement of August 25, 1998 is in all other respects acknowledged and
confirmed as an agreement between Zhou and the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto on the
day and year first above written.

VIBRO-TECH INDUSTRIES, INC.


By: /s/ William ChowWilliam Chow, Chairman of the Board


Signed, Sealed and Delivered by Foo                           )
Lin Zhou in the presence of:                                  )

/s/ Chinese Character                                           /s/ Foo Lin Zhou
                                                              )     FOO LIN ZHOU

3007051104
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,659,922
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      39,489,841
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,743,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,751,709
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,302,508
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,305,772
<LOANS>                                     42,318,418
<ALLOWANCE>                                    573,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,967,200
<DEPOSITS>                                  46,115,459
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            209,936
<LONG-TERM>                                    297,717
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,055,983
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,288,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              53,967,200
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,128,476
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               79,732
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                53,769
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,261,977
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             867,057
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             879,832
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,382,145
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   78,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,095,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                407,457
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     495,191
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   495,191
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.79
<LOANS-NON>                                    280,592
<LOANS-PAST>                                   257,728
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                538,320
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               503,014
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   12,584
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,963
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              573,393
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           220,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        353,393
        

</TABLE>
Zifen QIAN, petitioner, v. CAROL WILSON FINE ARTS, INC.

No. 17-612.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Armando ARROYO-JUSINO, petitioner, v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 17-5997.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   45,282,425
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  5,625,069
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       6,338,080
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,463,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,708,715
<COMMON>                                    19,244,610
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    4,769,183
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         17,679,962
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              41,693,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         4,742,500
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  390,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              11,882,460
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               58,708,715
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   23,075,177
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         3,477,924
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  14,999,085
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      8,076,092
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             753,786
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               8,829,878
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       344,787
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,007,167
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                5,007,167
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     3,463,505
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      342,627
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       8,549,026
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
        

</TABLE>
Jerome DIXON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6782.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                              IBIZ TECHNOLOGY CORP.
    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly  Report of iBiz Technology  Corp. (the Company)
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ended  October  31,  2003 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Kenneth
W.  Schilling,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Financial  Officer  of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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
Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to IBiz Technology  Corp. and will be retained by IBiz Technology Corp.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.

Date:  February 27, 2004


/s/ Kenneth W. Schilling
----------------------------------------------------
Kenneth W. Schilling
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of XATA Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that based on his knowledge: 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
Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report. /s/ John G. Lewis
John G. Lewis, Chief Financial Officer
 Dated: May 14, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to XATA Corporation and
will be retained by XATA Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, v. FIRST INTERNET BANK OF INDIANA.

No. 17-1590.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Larry BRASWELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7186.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2018.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 468 

To redesignate the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site as the ‘‘SaintGaudens National Historical Park’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire (for herself and Mr. PAPPAS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site as 

the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park’’, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens Na5 tional Historical Park Redesignation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SAINT-GAUDENS NATIONAL HIS7 TORICAL PARK. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Saint-Gaudens National His9 toric Site shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Saint10 Gaudens National Historical Park’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 468 IH

1 (b) AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 88–543.—Public 

2 Law 88–543 (78 Stat. 749) is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘National Historic Site’’ each 

4 place it appears and inserting ‘‘National Historical 

5 Park’’; 

6 (2) in section 2(a), by striking ‘‘historic site’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical 

8 Park’’; 

9 (3) in section 3, by— 

10 (A) striking ‘‘national historical site’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical 

12 Park’’; and 

13 (B) striking ‘‘part of the site’’ and insert14 ing ‘‘part of the park’’; and 

15 (4) in section 4(b), by striking ‘‘traditional to 

16 the site’’ and inserting ‘‘traditional to the park’’. 

17 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula18 tion, document, record, map, or other paper of the United 

19 States to the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site shall 

20 be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens Na21 tional Historical Park’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Gonzalo Troncoso

Gonzalo TroncosoExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDated: May 10, 2007
 31
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
I, Allen L. Shulman, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interland, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;   (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and   (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (a)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: April 4, 2005              /s/ Allen L. Shulman   Allen L. Shulman   Senior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer, and Executive Counsel
NO. SCWC-29131
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. PATRICK K. K. HO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29131; FC-CR NO. 07-1-0021)

ORDER OF CORRECTION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba,

Duffy and McKenna, JJ.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion and dissenting opinion filed on May 9, 2012, and the order of correction and amended opinion filed on May 14, 2012 are corrected as follows:

On the first page of each of the above documents, the case caption is corrected by deleting “CR. NO. 05-1-0282(3)” and replacing it with “FC-CR NO. 07-1-0021.” Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29131 18-MAY-2012 12:21 PMThe Clerk of the Court is directed to take all

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these changes. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 18, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
# Official Journal C 383/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 383 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6421 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 383

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6421 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 383/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10406 - CD&R/MCC Group) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 383/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10244 — Vodafone Group/Safaricom/Sumitomo/Ethiopia JV) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2021/C 383/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10405 — Alba/Swire/JV) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2021/C 383/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10331 — Caisse des dépôts/Bain Capital/Digital Aftermarket) (
  1
  ) | 4 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 383/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10406 - CD&R/MCC Group) (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 383/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10244 — Vodafone Group/Safaricom/Sumitomo/Ethiopia JV) (
  1
  )

1

2

2021/C 383/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10405 — Alba/Swire/JV) (
  1
  )

1

3

2021/C 383/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10331 — Caisse des dépôts/Bain Capital/Digital Aftermarket) (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 383/05 | Euro exchange rates — 20 September 2021 | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 383/05

Euro exchange rates — 20 September 2021

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Investment Bank |
| 2021/C 383/06 | Call for proposals – The European Investment Bank Institute proposes a new EIBURS sponsorship under its Knowledge Programme | 6 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 383/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10427 — KKR/Telefonica/Infraco) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 9 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Investment Bank

2021/C 383/06

Call for proposals – The European Investment Bank Institute proposes a new EIBURS sponsorship under its Knowledge Programme

6

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 383/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10427 — KKR/Telefonica/Infraco) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN