alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 5722.

April 30, 1931.)

#### In the Matter of the Application of VIOLA LOWE for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

[298 Pac. 940.]

*603Turner K. Hackman, for Petitioner.

*604Fred J. Babcock, Attorney General, Maurice H. Greene and Z. Reed Millar, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondent.

GIVENS, J.

Petitioner, convicted of forgery, unsuccessfully appealed, and now in the penitentiary, contends the information did not state a cause of action, for three reasons.

An information may be sufficient to support a judgment attacked by *habeas corpus,*even though it might have been held insufficient on demurrer, motion in arrest of judgment, or on appeal. *(In re Dawson,*20 Ida. 178, 190, 117 Pac. 696, 35 L. R. A., N. S., 1146; *In re Bottjer,*45 Ida. 168, 260 Pac. 1095; *Ex parte Solway,*82 Mont. 89, 265 Pac. 21; 12 R. C. L. 1202.)

The information charged the forgery of an order drawn by the chairman and clerk of a school district, and countersigned by the county superintendent, to the county *605auditor, for the issuance of a warrant chargeable against the funds of the said school district, under C. S., secs. 911, 913 and 914. These sections denominate such instrument an “order,” and clearly its effect, if valid, would result in the payment of money, which brings it within the purview of C. S., sec. 8408. *(People v. Bibby,*91 Cal. 470, 27 Pac. 781.)

Petitioner further attacks the information because it designates the school district as No. 39 in Twin Falls County, instead of, as she contends is the correct name, “Common School District” No. 39, etc. There is nothing on its face to show that the information was not correct, or sufficiently definite to apprise petitioner what school district was intended. *(People v. Dougherty,*246 Ill. 458, 92 N. E. 929; *Carrell v. State,*84 Tex. Cr. 554, 209 S. W. 159.)

Where the instrument alleged to be forged is copied *in haec verba,*in the information, and it purports on its face to be valid, regular, subject to forgery, indicating the party who would be defrauded thereby, indicating the relationship of parties, whose names appear in the instrument, and any organizations thereby designated, to the transaction, as appears from the instrument herein, no descriptive or extraneous allegations are necessary. *(People v. McGlade,*139 Cal. 66, 72 Pac. 600; *People v. Johnson,*7 Cal. App. 127, 93 Pac. 1042; *Lacy v. State,*33 Okl. 161, 242 Pac. 296; *State v. Smith,*32 N. M. 191, 252 Pac. 1003; *State v. Fay,*80 Minn. 251, 83 N. W. 158; *Reeves v. State,*51 Tex. Cr. 604, 103 S. W. 894; *McLean v. State,*3 Ga. App. 660, 60 S. E. 332; *MacGuire v. State,*91 Miss. 151, 44 So. 802; *State v. Barber,*105 Miss. 390, 62 So. 361; *People v. Hoyt,*145 App. Div. 695, 130 N. Y. Supp. 505.)

Writ quashed and the petitioner is remanded to the custody of the warden of the penitentiary.

Lee, C. J., and Yarian and McNaughton, JJ., concur.

Budge, J., did not participate.
|   | (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 the dates and for the periods expressed in the    Report. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  October      29, 2009 | /s/      Stephen A. Romano                         |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                   | Stephen      A. RomanoChief      Executive Officer |
|                                   |                                               |
|                                   | /s/      Jeffrey R. Feeler                         |
|                                   | Jeffrey      R. FeelerChief      Financial Officer |

----
463 A.2d 32

#### Commonwealth v. Munizza, Appellant.

Submitted June 13, 1980.

John W. Packel, Chief, Appeals, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P.J., WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

CERCONE, P.J., dissented.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1976

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain uses

of a facility owned by a tax-exempt organization shall not be treated

as private business use for purposes of determining whether bonds issued

to provide the facility are tax-exempt bonds.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Mr. THOMPSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that certain uses of a facility owned by a tax-exempt

organization shall not be treated as private business use

for purposes of determining whether bonds issued to

provide the facility are tax-exempt bonds.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN USES OF FACILITY OF TAX-EXEMPT

4 ORGANIZATION NOT TREATED AS PRIVATE

5 BUSINESS USE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified 501(c)(3) bonds)
2

•S 1976 IS

1 is amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection

2 (f) and by inserting after subsection (d) the following new

3 subsection:

4 ‘‘(e) CERTAIN USE NOT TREATED AS PRIVATE BUSI5 NESS USE.—In the case of a facility owned by a 501(c)(3)

6 organization, use of such facility by a nongovernmental

7 person solely resulting from the purchase of a franchise

8 or similar-type asset by such 501(c)(3) organization shall

9 not be treated as a private business use if—

10 ‘‘(1) the nongovernmental person is not entitled

11 to control the economic operations of the facility,

12 ‘‘(2) the nongovernmental person does not have

13 an interest in revenues derived with respect to the

14 facility,

15 ‘‘(3) such 501(c)(3) organization is not obli16 gated by contract or otherwise to compensate the

17 nongovernmental person with respect to activities or

18 services performed by such nongovernmental person

19 at the facility, and

20 ‘‘(4) the nongovernmental person does not have

21 any leasehold interest in the facility.

22 Paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be applied by disregarding

23 any annual payment (other than a payment representing

24 a share of net profits) by the 501(c)(3) organization of

25 less than 5 percent of the annual revenues generated by
3

•S 1976 IS

1 the facility if such payment is required pursuant to stand2 ard agreements relating to the purchase of such franchise

3 or similar-type asset.’’

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 this section shall apply to uses after the date of the enact6 ment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21.0
 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 A)
    
    ORIENTAL BANK AND TRUST- an insured non-member commercial bank organized and existing under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.SUBSIDIARIES OF ORIENTAL BANK AND TRUST:
 1.
    
    Oriental International Bank Inc. an international banking entity organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.2.
    
    Oriental Mortgage Corporation- a mortgage bank organized and existing under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.3.
    
    EB Operating Number One, Inc.- a corporation created to manage a foreclosed real
estate which has rental operations, organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
 B)
    
    ORIENTAL FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP.- a registered securities broker-dealer organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.C)
    
    ORIENTAL INSURANCE, INC. a registered insurance agency organized and existing under the
laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.D)
    
    CARIBBEAN PENSION CONSULTANTS, INC a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Florida that offers third party pension plan administration in the continental
U.S., Puerto Rico and the Caribbean.E)
    
    ORIENTAL FINANCIAL (PR) STATUTORY TRUST II a special purpose statutory trust organized
under the laws of the State of Connecticut.
Exhibit 15.2  KPMG   LLP

Telephone

(416)   228-7000Chartered   Accountants

Fax

(416)   228-7123Yonge   Corporate Centre

Internet

www.kpmg.ca4100   Yonge St.Suite 200North York, ON M2P 2H3  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  The Board of Directors Celestica Inc.  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-113591, 333-88210, 333-71126, 333-66726, 333-63112) and Form F-3 (No. 333-178161) of Celestica Inc. of our report dated March 7, 2013, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets as at December 31, 2012 and 2011, the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, and notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information and our report dated March 7, 2013 with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, which reports appear in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 20-F of Celestica Inc.     Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants March 15, 2013 Toronto, Canada  KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 USC, as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; N44DA–10–5542: Rapid Assessment Tools of Sexual and Drug Use Risk Behaviors.                    

*Date:*                         May 21, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Minna Liang, PhD., Scientific Review Officer, Training and Special Projects Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 6101 Executive Blvd., Room 220, MSC 8401, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301–435–1432,                         *liangm@nida.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

                        Dated:                         *April 29, 2010.*

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010–10879 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
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 on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of
Cadence Financial Corporation (the Corporation) for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard T. Haston, the Chief Financial Officer
of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 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 Section 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 Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Richard T. HastonName:

Richard HastonTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

May 8, 2008


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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1794

To designate the Federal courthouse at 145 East Simpson Avenue in Jackson,

Wyoming, as the ‘‘Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 26, 1999

Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public

Works

A BILL

To designate the Federal courthouse at 145 East Simpson

Avenue in Jackson, Wyoming, as the ‘‘Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CLIFFORD P. HANSEN FED4 ERAL COURTHOUSE.

5 The Federal courthouse at 145 East Simpson Avenue

6 in Jackson, Wyoming, shall be known and designated as

7 the ‘‘Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse’’.
2

•S 1794 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse.

Æ
II

Calendar No. 665

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1670

[Report No. 106–331]

To revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. MACK) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

JULY 10, 2000

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National

Monument, 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. DEFINITIONS.

4 In this Act:
2

S 1670 RS

1 (1) MAP.—The term ‘‘Map’’ means the map en2 titled ‘‘Fort Matanzas National Monument’’, num3 bered 347/80,004 and dated February, 1991.

4 (2) MONUMENT.—The term ‘‘Monument’’

5 means the Fort Matanzas National Monument in

6 Florida.

7 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

8 the Secretary of the Interior.

9 SEC. 2. REVISION OF BOUNDARY.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Monument

11 is revised to include an area totaling approximately 70

12 acres, as generally depicted on the Map.

13 (b) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The Map shall be on file

14 and available for public inspection in the office of the Di15 rector of the National Park Service.

16 SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.

17 The Secretary may acquire any land, water, or inter18 ests in land that are located within the revised boundary

19 of the Monument by—

20 (1) donation;

21 (2) purchase with donated or appropriated

22 funds;

23 (3) transfer from any other Federal agency; or

24 (4) exchange.
3

S 1670 RS

1 SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

2 Subject to applicable laws, all land and interests in

3 land held by the United States that are included in the

4 revised boundary under section 2 shall be administered by

5 the Secretary as part of the Monument.

6 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

8 as are necessary to carry out this Act.
Calendar No. 665

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1670

[Report No. 106–331]

A BILL

To revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National

Monument, and for other purposes.

JULY 10, 2000

Reported without amendment
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a),**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 0F THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Daniel E. Bachus, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Grand Canyon Education, Inc.; and

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Date: April 23,   2019 | /s/ Daniel E. Bachus                                             |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | Daniel E. Bachus                                                 |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer                                          |
|                        | (Principal Financial   Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |

 

----
#### STATE ex rel. LEYSON, Relator, *v.*DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT et al., Respondents.

(No. 1,752.)

(Submitted March 22, 1902.

Decided March 26, 1902.)

*Certiorari*— Adminisiration—Order *of Partial*Distribution— *Appealable Order.*

*Certiorari*will not be granted to review an order for the partial distribution of tlie estate.óf a decedent, since there is an appeal from such order.

*Certiorari*by the state, on the relation of John II. Leyson, administrator of the estate of A. J. Davis, deceased, against the district court of the Second judicial district of the state of Montana, and E. W. Ilarney, judge thereof.

Dismissed.

*Messrs. Forbis*<£• Mattison, and *Mr. E. N.*Harwood, for Relator.

*Messrs. Olayberg & Qunn, for*Respondents.

*379ME. CHIEF JUSTICE BRANTLY

delivered tlie opinion of tlie court.

Application for writ of *certiorari*to review and annul an order of partial distribution made by tbe district court of Silver Bow county in tlie matter of the estate of A. J. Davis, deceased.

The writ is denied, for the reason that an appeal lies from the order complained of, and it therefore cannot be reviewed -by means of *certiorari.*(Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1721; *Id.*Sec. 1722, Subd. 3; Laws 1899, p. 146; Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 2832; *In re Phillips’*Estate, 18 Mont. 311, 45 Pac. 222; *State ex rel. Whiteside*v. *First Judicial Dist. Court,*24 Mont. 552, 63 Pac. 395; *State ex rel. King et al.*v. *Second Judicial Dist.*Court, 24 Mont. 494, 62 Pac. 820.)

Let the application be dismissed.

*Dismissed.*

*380(Submitted March 26, 1902. Decided March 27, 1902.-)

*382(Submitted April 14, 1902. Decided April 18, 1902.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BHUPENDRA KESHAVLAL AMIN, 

AKA Amin Bhupendra Keshavlal, AKA 

Amin Bobender Keshavlal,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-71003

Agency No. A070-935-011

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Bhupendra Keshavlal Amin, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his untimely second 

motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

 

* 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 decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-71003 

abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo 

claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 

(9th Cir. 2005). We review for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding 

counsel’s performance. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004). 

We deny the petition for review.

 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Amin’s second motion to 

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than ninety days after the 

final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably 

determined that he failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for 

an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 

1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 

2010). 

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Amin’s motion to 

reopen because he failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel so as to 

warrant equitable tolling of the time and numerical limitations on his motion to 

reopen. See Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2007). We 

reject Amin’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights. See Lata v. 
 3 14-71003 

INA, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due 

process claim). 

We decline Amin’s request to remand to the BIA for administrative closure 

in light of Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), or for 

prosecutorial discretion, because he did not request these before the agency. We 

deny as moot Amin’s request for voluntary departure.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.