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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

QIANYUE WU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71423

Agency No. A095-649-009

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 2, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Qianyue Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Vasquez v. Holder,

FILED

AUG 9 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71423

602 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding of marriage fraud under

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G) where Wu’s testimony failed to show that he and his

former spouse intended to establish a life together at the time they were married. 

See Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2004). 

We lack jurisdiction to review Wu’s claim for relief under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(1)(H) because he failed to raise it before the agency. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review

contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
SCPW-12-0000923

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

BARBARA ELLEN SHERRILL, 

Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHAN,

Judge of the First Circuit Court, State of Hawai#i, 

Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CAAP-12-0000676; PROBATE NO. 10-1-0254)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Nacino, in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Upon consideration of petitioner Barbara Ellen

Sherrill’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on

October 29, 2012, the documents attached thereto and submitted in

support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner has

failed to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right

to the relief she seeks and a lack of alternative means to obtain

such relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to mandamus

relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0000923

30-NOV-2012

12:04 PM
338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that

will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and

indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to

redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested

action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal

discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they

intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate

procedure). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 30, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Edwin C. Nacino
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SLEP

- TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; PHOENIX ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC,

Plaintiff s

- Appellant s ,

v.

CANTON PHOENIX INCORPORATED, DBA Canton Phoenix; BING PAN ZHU,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 36018

D.C. No. 3:14

- cv

- 00764

- PK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017 ** Portland, Oregon

Before: BYBEE and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, *** Senior District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for d ecision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 10 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

This suit by Slep

- Tone Entertainment Corporation raises trademark

infringement claims against Canton Phoenix Incor porated and its owner, Bing Pan

Zhu, arising out of Canton ’s use of unauthorized copies of Slep

- Tone’s karaoke

accompaniment tracks bearing Slep

- Tone’s registered trademarks

. 1 The district

court dismissed Slep

- Tone’s claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and affirm.

1. As we recently held in a case involving identical claims by Slep

- Tone , the

district court correctly dismissed the Lanham Act claims because Slep

- Tone’s

complaint instead sounds in copyright. Slep

- Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Wired f or Sound

Karaoke & DJ Servs., LLC , 845 F.3d 1246, 1248

- 50 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Dastar

Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. , 539 U.S. 23, 31

- 34 (2003))

.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denyin g leave to amend

the complaint because Slep

- Tone did not request below leave to amend to assert

copyright claims , and any reassertion of its trademark claims would be futile

. See

Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g , 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

1 On appeal, the court has added Phoenix Entertainment P artners, LLC, the

successor

- in

- interest to Slep

- Tone Entertainment Corp oration , as an additional appellant . We refer to these entities collectively as “Slep

- Tone.”
EXHIBIT 21



Private Media Group, Inc. Subsidiaries



|                                    |  |                       
|----------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                  |  | Place of Incorporation
|Cine Craft, Ltd.                    |  | GIBRALTAR             
|Coldfair Holdings Limited           |  | CYPRUS                
|Fraserside Holdings Ltd.            |  | CYPRUS                
|Peach Entertainment Distribution AB |  | SWEDEN                
|Milcap Media Group S.L.             |  | SPAIN                 
|Milcap Publishing Group Italy Srl   |  | ITALY                 
|Private Benelux B.V.                |  | THE NETHERLANDS       
|Private France SAS                  |  | FRANCE                
|Private North America, Ltd.         |  | U.S. (California)     
|Barbuda B.V.                        |  | THE NETHERLANDS       
|Ceresland S.L.                      |  | SPAIN                 
|Private Media Group Canada, Inc.    |  | CANADA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2752

_____________________________

PATRICK WHITE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

February 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Patrick White, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Deaunte D. REGISTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D02-2291.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 23, 2003.

FULMER, Judge.

Deaunte D. Register challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Register failed to present a facially sufficient claim, we affirm the trial court’s order.

*343In his motion, Register alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for trafficking in cocaine was illegally imposed. Register based his claim on our opinion in *Taylor v. State,*818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), *review dismissed,*821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). *Taylor*held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which provided for the imposition of the mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. In denying Register’s motion, the trial court found that “[a]s of April 29, 2002, the Florida Legislature cured the single subject violation by re-enacting the provisions contained in Chapter 99-188 and providing for retroactive application to July 1, 1999.” However, in *Green v. State,*839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court has since held that the reenactment of the sentencing provisions of chapter 99-188 cannot be applied retroactively because this would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.

If Register’s offense occurred within the *Taylor*window, he is entitled to be resen-tenced under the valid law in effect at the time of the offense. *See Green,*839 So.2d 748. However, Register failed to present a facially sufficient claim for relief under rule 3.800(a) since he failed to affirmatively allege that he committed the offense on a date within the *Taylor*window. *See Sims v. State,*838 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We therefore affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right Register might have to file a facially sufficient claim. *See id.*

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1142 CA 12-00061 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

KAREN MCGRATH AND STEVEN FOLEY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

LIPPMAN O’CONNOR, BUFFALO (GERARD E. O’CONNOR OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. TUOHEY, ROCHESTER, FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered July 13, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part the motion of defendant for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: These consolidated appeals arise from an action for, inter alia, private nuisance, which plaintiffs commenced to recover damages arising from the cost of repairs to their parcel of real property, as well as the diminution of the value of their property. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant’s adjacent parcel of property collapsed, causing the subsidence of plaintiffs’ property. Defendant contends in appeal No. 1 that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the private nuisance cause of action, and defendant contends in appeal No. 2 that the court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint.
We reject defendant’s contention in appeal No. 1 that the court should have granted that part of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the private nuisance cause of action. In support of that part of the motion, defendant contended that the sloped land was a naturally occurring event for which it could not be held liable, and that it was immune from this type of action pursuant to the municipal immunity doctrine set forth in Weiss v Fote (7 NY2d 579, 584, rearg denied 8 NY2d 934). We agree with the court that defendant failed to meet its initial burden on either prong of the motion ( see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324). Defendant’s further contentions with respect to appeal No. 1 are not properly before us-2- 1142 CA 12-00061
inasmuch as they are raised for the first time on appeal ( see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora , 202 AD2d 984, 985).
Contrary to the contention of defendant in appeal No. 2, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint inasmuch as defendant failed to demonstrate that it will be prejudiced by the amendment, and the amendment is not palpably insufficient on its face ( see Hogarth v City of Syracuse [appeal No. 1], 238 AD2d 887, 887, lv dismissed 90 NY2d 935, lv denied 93 NY2d 812).

Entered: November 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment

(2005/C 306/01)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

Note:

More information about harmonised standards on the Internet at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds

----

(1)  CEN: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels, tel. (32-2) 550 08 11; fax (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be)

Cenelec: rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Brussels, tel. (32-2) 519 68 71; fax (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.cenelec.org)

ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, tel. (33) 492 94 42 00; fax (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org

(2)OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(3)OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

WILLIAM HUGHES, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 427 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
STATE v. Charles Anthony BALL

102P13-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Greg Newman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Charles Anthony Ball, for Ball, Charles Anthony.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of August 2018 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
Exhibit
32.2




Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I,
Jonathan A. Graf, Chief Financial Officer of American Campus Communities, Inc.
(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




(i) The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m); and




(ii) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: 
      May 7, 2010
            /s/
      Jonathan A. GrafJonathan
      A. GrafExecutive
      Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer and
  Treasurer
Exhibit 13.1


















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





I, Dr. Vishal Sikka, 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
20-F of Infosys Limited for the year ended March 31, 2015, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents
in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Infosys Limited.





|                   | /s/ DR. VISHAL SIKKA                                                          
|------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |                                                                               
|Date: May 20, 2015 | Dr. Vishal Sikka
        Chief Executive
        Officer and Managing Director
KPMG
757 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors North Fork Bank:

We have examined management's  assertion about North Fork Bank's compliance with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers as of and for
the year ended  December  31,  1998,  included  in the  accompanying  management
assertion. Management is responsible for North Fork Bank's compliance with those
minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about the Bank's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the North Fork Bank's compliance with
the minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other  procedures as we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination on North Fork Bank's  compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion  that North Fork Bank complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

KPMG LLP

March 22, 1999
# Official Journal C 55A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.055.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 55A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5524 February 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.055.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 55A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5524 February 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2012/C 055A/01 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Medicines Agency

2012/C 055A/01

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |
| 46 | |
| 53 | |
| 55 | |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

46

53

55

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

EN
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 of Now Auto Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Scott Miller, Chief Executive Officer/ Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer of the the Company, certify in my capacities as officer of
the Company, 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 our knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 the dates and for the periods expressed in the
          Report.

By:      /s/ Scott Miller
         -------------------------------
         Chief Executive Officer/Financial Officer and
         Chief Operating Officer
         February 14, 2006
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of CarrAmerica
Realty Corporation, the general partner of CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P. (the Operating Partnership), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/Thomas A. CarrThomas A. CarrChief Executive Officer (of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, the General Partner of CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P.)May 5, 2006/s/Stephen E. RiffeeStephen E. RiffeeChief Financial Officer (of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, the General Partner of CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P.)May 5, 2006
#### Pamela GEORGE, et al. v. HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., et al.

No. 2003-CC-1261.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re George, Pamela et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 99-18713; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-0315.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.
#### Eric T. MULLINIX, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 5D03-437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 5, 2003.

Eric T. Mullinix, Greenwood, Indiana, Pro Se.

John D. Maher, Deputy General Counsel, Unemployment Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc., Great Am. Div. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n.,*671 So.2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, GRIFFIN, and MONACO, JJ., concur.