alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JOSE LUIS CRUZ ALVAREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73343

Agency No. A099-581-168

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Jose Luis Cruz Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of a motion for continuance regarding his

FILED

OCT 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Alvarez’s motion for a

continuance because Alvarez did not demonstrate good cause. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29;

see Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for

abuse of discretion).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of New York State Supreme Court Officers Association, Respondent, v Jonathan Lippman, as Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

[801 NYS2d 399]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, to compel the appellants to conduct a new civil service test for the new JG-19 title, Jonathan Lippman, as Chief Administra*1034tive Judge of the State of New York, and the State of New York Unified Court System appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), entered May 21, 2004, as, upon renewal of a judgment of the same court dated February 9, 2004, directed them to prepare, advertise, and conduct a new test for the new JG-19 title, which shall be made available to all those individuals who were eligible to take a June 16, 2001, test for a proposed JG-20 title but elected not to take that test.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, upon renewal, so much of the judgment dated February 9, 2004 as directed the appellants to prepare, advertise, and conduct a new test for the JG-17 and JG-19 titles is vacated, the petition is denied in its entirety, and the proceeding is dismissed in its entirety; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment dated February 9, 2004, is modified accordingly.

In a judgment dated February 9, 2004, from which no appeal was taken, the Supreme Court held that the appellants’ determination pursuant to 22 NYCRR 25.19 (c) (2) to fill vacancies in the JG-17 and JG-19 titles from persons who took the civil service examination for the proposed JG-20 title was not arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner did not establish a clear legal right to a new civil service test for the new JG-19 title *(see Matter of Altamore v Barrios-Paoli,*90 NY2d 378, 385 [1997]). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Crane and Lifson, JJ., concur.
----

(2004/C 78 E/0185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2850/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Unsatisfactory performance by building and holiday home cooperatives in Greece

Very strong dissatisfaction is being expressed in Greece by members of building and holiday home cooperatives who maintain that, having paid annual and lump sum contributions over long periods, they have not yet obtained building plots. One example of this is the Medical Staff Summer Property Cooperative situated in Athens (Odos Rizari 17), founded in 1965 and officially recognised in 1968 by the Greek Social Affairs Ministry. It has 3090 members. However, after a period of over 35 years its members (doctors and medical staff) maintain that they have not yet obtained building plots despite payment of their annual contributions to the cooperative, together with additional lump sum payments amounting to hundreds of thousands of drachmae each (at early 1980s prices).

What view does the Commission take of the fact that nationals of an EU Member State have for 35 years or more been paying contributions and subscriptions to a building cooperative without yet obtaining from it the building plots to which they are entitled? What legal measures can be taken to protect the interests of the thousands of members of this and other cooperatives which have been collecting subscriptions for years (or, as claimed by the members of this particular association, for decades) without any building plots having yet been obtained?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

There is no relevant European legislation covering the situation described by the Honourable Member. The provisions of Directive 94/47/EC on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis do not apply to cooperatives. Timeshare amounts to buying a right to spend a set period of time once a year in a holiday property for three years or longer. The purchase of a plot in a building or holiday home cooperative does not limit the enjoyment of this plot to a set annual period of time.

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with private matters, such as those raised in the question asked by the Honourable Member, which, on the basis of the information provided, appears to be a contractual matter solely for the national authorities concerned.

----
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21

         LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF BINGHAM FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

1. MHFC, Inc., a Michigan corporation
2. Bloomfield Acceptance Company, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company
3. Bloomfield Servicing Company, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company
4. MHFC of New Mexico, Inc., a Michigan corporation
5. IJK Insurance Agency, Inc., a Michigan corporation and wholly owned
   subsidiary of MHFC, Inc.
6. Hartger & Willard Mortgage Associates, Inc., a Michigan corporation
7. Dynex Financial, Inc., a Virginia corporation
----

(2004/C 33 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2113/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Emergence in Europe of a new monopoly on dissemination of information via the Internet and worrying collection of personal data

Source: De Volkskrant (Netherlands daily) of 24 May 2003

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

----

(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2)  Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(3)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           6,077
<SECURITIES>                                    18,169
<RECEIVABLES>                                      132
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,344
<PP&E>                                          17,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,583)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,988
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,507
<OTHER-SE>                                    (36,863)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,405
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,364
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,243)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,243)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2014 of 19 September 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2014                     

# of 19 September 2014

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

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

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

Done at Brussels, 19 September 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
DICKSON, et al. v. RUCHO, et al.

No. 201PA12-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 16, 2015.

Phillip J. Strach, Raleigh, for Rucho, Robert et al.

Edwin Speas, Raleigh, Anita S. Earls, for Dickson, Margaret, et al.

Thomas A. Farr, Raleigh.

Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina, et al.

Susan K. Nichols, Special Deputy Attorney General.

John W. O'Hale, Raleigh, Guardian ad Litem.

Caroline P. Mackie, Raleigh.

*312Allison J. Riggs.

Clare Barnett.

Adam Stein, Chapel Hill, Victor Goode, for North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, et al.

John A. Bussian, Raleigh, for NC Press Association, Inc., et al.

Mark J. Prak, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Broadcasters, Inc.

Charles E. Coble, Raleigh.

Dorrian H. Horsey.

Hugh Stevens, for N.C. Open Government Coalition, Inc.

Geraldine Sumter, Charlotte, Terry Smith, Pro Hac Vice, for N.C. Legislative Black Caucus.

David Lambeth, Durham, for David Lambeth.

Mark A. Finkelstein, Matthew Nis Leerberg, Raleigh, for Election Law Professors.

H. Jefferson Powell, for N.C. Law Professors.

Paul M. Smith, Chapel Hill, Pro Hac Vice, for Election Law Professors.

Jessica Ring Amunson, Pro Hac Vice, for Election Law Professors.

Leah J. Tulin, Pro Hac Vice, for Election Law Professors.

Michelle R. Singer, Pro Hac Vice, for Election Law Professors.

Kareem Crayton, Pro Hac Vice, for N.C. Legislative Black Caucus.

Meghann K. Burke, Michael E. Casterline, Asheville, for Congressional Black Caucus.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of June 2015 by Congressional Black Caucus for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of June 2015."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No.  333-109355 and No. 333-120801) and on Form S-8 (No.
333-60290 and No.  333-31448) of our report dated January 21, 2005 (with respect
to Notes 2,  10(d) and 12,  March 10,  2005) on our  audits of the  consolidated
financial  statements of On2 Technologies,  Inc., and subsidiaries for the years
ended December 31, 2004 and 2003,  included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.
We also  consent  to the  reference  to us under the  heading  "Experts"  in the
Registration Statements.



/s/ EISNER LLP

Eisner LLP


New York, New York
March 16, 2005
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51222

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CRISTINA ESCARENO-VARELA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1063-ALL

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cristina Escareno-Varela (Varela) appeals the 18-month sentence imposed

following her guilty plea to importation of marijuana and possession with intent

to distribute marijuana. She argues that the district court clearly erred in

denying her a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Varela

contends that she was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than

other participants in the offense.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 7, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51222

2

Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual

determination reviewed for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d

193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to § 3B1.2(b), a district court may

decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the defendant was a minor

participant. An adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant “who is less

culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as

minimal.” § 3B1.2 cmt. n.5.

Varela’s ongoing participation in importing multiple kilograms of

marijuana provided an indispensable service to the drug-trafficking operation

and was essential to its success. See United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241

(5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.

1989). Varela exclusively was responsible for transporting the marijuana across

the border and insuring that the marijuana was dispatched effectively to its

intended recipients in Kansas. Varela additionally was aware that the jalapeño

cans contained a type and quantity of illegal narcotics, and she received $40 for

each successful crossing. Thus, Varela directly profited from her knowing

participation in drug importation activities.

Thus, the district court’s finding that Varela was not a minor participant

was plausible in light of the record as a whole and therefore not clearly

erroneous. See Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 203-04. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
David L. SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STATE of North Carolina, Gov. Pat McCrory, Wake County Superior Court, and Judge Donald W. Stephens.

No. 580P05-13.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

David Lee Smith, for Smith, David Lee.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 10th of June 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 2nd of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE v. SILVA.

No. COA07-1345.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (05CRS101793, 05CRS101794, 05CRS101796, 05CRS101797).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
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 Annual Report of Freedom Resources Enterprises, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2001 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Neil  A.  Christiansen,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  the  best  of  my  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  result of operations of the
Company.




                         /s/ Neil  Christiansen
                         ------------------------
                         Chief  Financial  Officer
                         October  23,  2002
EXHIBIT 13.(a).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 Annual Report of Tefron Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our 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.

Date:  March 28, 2005

                                                 /s/ Yosef Shiran
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Yosef Shiran
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 30, 2005

                                                 /s/ Asaf Alperovitz
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Asaf Alperovitz
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. Eugene Johnny WILLIAMS.

No. 506A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 19, 2008.

Ann Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Williams.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Calvin Colyer, Assistant District Attorney, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of February 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 22nd day of April 2008 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of February 2008."
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002          In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN Television Corporation for thethree months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 9, 2006  /s/ Vincent L. Sadusky   Vincent L. Sadusky   Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer