alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Shana WONG, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73284.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 7, 2005.

*847William Kiang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Thankful T. Vanderstar, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

Shana Wong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, and reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that Wong has not experienced persecution. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Wong does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. After moving to the city, Wong, along with her mother and sister, attended church on a regular basis without incident. Moreover, Wong’s mother and sister continue to practice their faith in China unharmed. *See Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that continual presence of similarly-situated family members and applicant’s practice of faith without incident undercuts claim of persecution).

Because Wong failed to establish the threshold showing that she experienced past persecution, or that she has a well-founded fear of persecution, we do not reach the secondary question of whether that persecution was “on account of’ her membership in a particular social group. *See Diaz-Escobar v. INS,*782 F.2d 1488, 1494 (9th Cir.1986).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:07-cr-00353-PKC Document 126 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. McCREE

No. 73 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 115.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 May 1975.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,464
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,464)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6900

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY O'NEAL HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-95-912)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony O'Neal Harris, Appellant Pro Se. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony O'Neal Harris appeals the district court's order denying

his motion for reduction of sentence. Harris alleges that he was

sentenced under a pre-1994 version of U.S. Sentencing Commission,

Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1(c), resulting in a base offense level

higher than that permissible under the Guidelines Manual in effect

as of November, 1994. We have reviewed the record and find his

factual assertion to be incorrect. Harris's sentence was computed

according to the 1995 edition of the Guidelines Manual. He did

receive a base offense level of 38 which, after subsequent adjustments, resulted in a total offense level of 37. Therefore, we

affirm the district court's denial of his motion for reduction. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.46 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### KIRBY v. CONTRACTING CO.

No. 69 PC.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 128.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 10 June 1971.
#### STATE v. BARNETTE

No. 99 PC.

Case below: 8 N.C. App. 198.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied and motion to stay execution denied 14 July 1970.
#### THURMAN HANKINS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7800

July 23, 1975

538 P.2d 167

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Robert D. Larsen,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Thurman Hankins was convicted by a jury of rape, infamous crime against nature and burglary. His sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict on the rape charge.

Although Hankins testified that the victim consented to the sexual act, the jury chose to believe the prosecution witnesses, and not Hankins’ version of the incident.

When there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony. “Where there is substantial evidence to support a *478verdict in a criminal case, as the record indicates in this case, the reviewing court will not disturb the verdict nor set aside the judgment.” Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 529 P.2d 206 (1974). See also, Azbill v. State, 88 Nev. 240, 495 P.2d 1064 (1972); Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. 358, 441 P.2d 90 (1969).

Affirmed.
Norman C. Kleinberg 

Theodore V. H. Mayer 

William J. Beausoleil 

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP 

One Battery Park Plaza 

New York, NY 10004-1482 

(212) 837-6000 

Paul F Strain 

David J. Heubeck 

VENABLE LLP 

750 E. Pratt Street 

Suite 900 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

(410) 244-7400 

Attorneys for Defendant Merck & Co., Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------x 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-----------------------------------------------------x 

IN RE: 

Fosamax Products Liability Litigation 1:06-md-01789 (JFK) 

-----------------------------------------------------x 

This Document Relates to ALL CASES NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

-----------------------------------------------------x 

TO: Attorney Admission Clerk and All Other Parties 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.3 of this Court, please take notice of the following attorney 

information change for Venable LLP. The mailing address for the Venable attorneys listed 

below should be changed to: 750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900, Baltimore, MD 21202. All phone 

numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses for these attorneys remain the same. 

Paul F. Strain 

David J. Heubeck 

Christina L. Gaarder 

James E. Gray 

Case 1:07-cv-03294-JFK Document 29 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 1 of 3
Kathleen Sullivan Hardway 

M. King Hill, III 

Michael B. MacWilliams 

Stephen E. Marshall 

Randolph S. Sergent 

Craig A. Thompson 

All are Pro Hac Vice attorneys. 

Dated: June 2, 2008 

 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ 

Paul F. Strain 

VENABLE LLP 

750 E. Pratt Street 

Suite 900 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

(410) 244-7400 

Fax: (410) 244-7742 

pfstrain@venable.com 

2 

Case 1:07-cv-03294-JFK Document 29 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on June 2, 2008, the foregoing NOTICE OF CHANGE OF 

ADDRESS was filed electronically and served electronically, pursuant to the Court's Case 

Management Order via the Court's CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ 

Paul F. Strain 

VENABLE LLP 

750 E. Pratt Street 

Suite 900 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

(410) 244-7400 

Fax: (410) 244-7742 

pfstrain@venable.com 

3 

Case 1:07-cv-03294-JFK Document 29 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 11







BAIRNCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES



CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE



FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002, 2001 AND 2000





|                                           | 2002             | 2001              | 2000            
|------------------------------------------ | ---------------- | ----------------- | ----------------
|BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:    |                  |                   |                 
|                                           |                  |                   |                 
|Net Income (Loss)                          | $  1,361,000     | $  (308,000)      | $  8,233,000    
|                                           |                  |                   |                 
|Weighted-average common shares outstanding | 7,332,000        | 7,321,000         | 7,567,000       
|                                           |                  |                   |                 
|Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share     | $           0.19 | $        (0.04)   | $           1.09
|                                           |                  |                   |                 
|                                           |                  |                   |                 
|DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:  |                  |                   |                 
|                                           |                  |                   |                 
|Net Income (Loss)                          | $  1,361,000     | $  (308,000)      | $  8,233,000    
|                                           |                  |                   |                 
|Weighted-average common shares outstanding | 7,332,000        | 7,321,000         | 7,567,000       
|Common shares issuable in respect to       |                  |                   |                 
|Options issued to employees                |                  |                   |                 
|with a dilutive effect                     | 5,000            | --                | 111,000         
|Total common shares assuming full dilution | 7,337,000        | 7,321,000         | 7,678,000       
|                                           |                  |                   |                 
|Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share   | $          0.19  | $          (0.04) | $           1.07
|                                           |                  |                   |                 





Basic earnings (loss) per common share were computed by dividing net income by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during each year. Diluted earnings (loss) per common share includes the effect of all dilutive stock options except in 2001 because to do so would be antidilutive.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73
          - [DA 05-2934; MM Docket No. 01-232, RM-10260]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; dismissal.

# SUMMARY:

The Audio Division, at the request of Charles Crawford, the proponent of a petition for rule making to allot Channel 225A at Port Sanilac, Michigan, 66 FR 48108 (September 18, 2001), dismisses the petition for rule making and terminates the proceeding.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.                              ( print page 70774)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a synopsis of the Commission's                     *Report and Order,*                     MM Docket No. 01-232, adopted November 4, 2005, and released November 7, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site,                     *http://www.bcpiweb.com.*                     The                     *Report and Order*                     is not subject to the Congressional Review Act, and therefore the Commission will not send a copy of it in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office,                     *see*                     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).                

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 05-22843 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Case 1:06-cv-14993-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of F.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BUSH TERMINAL 

POST OFFICE, Brooklyn, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0910

Issued: October 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,613.00.1 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’ services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgement by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of 

$1,613.00.

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulation (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review each 

fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal. 

2

Id. at § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id. 
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds that it is in compliance with the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure.

5

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATthe fee petition is granted in the amount of $1,613.00.

Issued: October 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5

Id.
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 2 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 3 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 4 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 5 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 6 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 7 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 8 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 9 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 10 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 11 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 86-8 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 14 of 14
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-46590, No. 333-76615, No. 333-124050 and No. 333-124844) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statement (No. 333-76611) on Form S-3D of First M&F Corporation of our reports dated February 23, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements of First M&F Corporation and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of First M&F Corporation included in this annual report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

| /s/  Shearer, Taylor & Co., P.A. |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           |   |
| Ridgeland,   Mississippi                  |   |
| March 12, 2007                            |   |

----