alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6976

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ELLUS LAROUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:98-cr-00007-F-4)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: December 12, 2016

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellus Larous, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ellus Larous appeals the district court’s order denying his 

motion for declaratory relief or immigration departure. We have 

reviewed the record and Larous’s claims and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Larous, No. 5:98-cr-00007-F-4 

(E.D.N.C. July 6, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-KSB REPORT OF OVM INTERNATIONAL HOLDING CORP FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                            RENMINBI YUAN
                                      
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                8.29      
<CASH>                                       13,956      
<SECURITIES>                                      0      
<RECEIVABLES>                               113,671      
<ALLOWANCES>                                 13,076      
<INVENTORY>                                  34,745      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            222,899      
<PP&E>                                       18,350      
<DEPRECIATION>                                5,612      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              248,640      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       159,844      
<BONDS>                                           0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0      
<PREFERRED>                                       0      
<COMMON>                                         10      
<OTHER-SE>                                   59,124      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                248,640      
<SALES>                                     130,962      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            135,284      
<CGS>                                        83,834      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                83,834      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             32,463      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             10,000      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            6,192      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               2,795      
<INCOME-TAX>                                      9      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2,786      
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0      
<CHANGES>                                         0      
<NET-INCOME>                                  1,145      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.1      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.1      
                                        


</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1967

To make technical corrections to the status of certain land held in trust

for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, to take certain land into

trust for that Band, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 18, 1999

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To make technical corrections to the status of certain land

held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, to take certain land into trust for that Band, 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. STATUS OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law—

6 (1) all land taken in trust by the United States

7 for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw
2

•S 1967 IS

1 Indians on or after December 23, 1944, shall be

2 part of the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Reservation;

3 (2) all land held in fee by the Mississippi Band

4 of Choctaw Indians located within the boundaries of

5 the State of Mississippi, as shown in the report enti6 tled ‘‘Report of Fee Lands owned by the Mississippi

7 Band of Choctaw Indians’’, dated September 28,

8 1999, on file in the Office of the Superintendent,

9 Choctaw Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Depart10 ment of the Interior, is hereby declared to be held

11 by the United States in trust for the benefit of the

12 Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; and

13 (3) land made part of the Mississippi Choctaw

14 Indian Reservation after December 23, 1944, shall

15 not be considered to be part of the ‘‘initial reserva16 tion’’ of the tribe for the purposes of section

17 20(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

18 (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(ii)).

19 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec20 tion shall be construed to alter the application or the re21 quirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25

22 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) with respect to any lands held by

23 or for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indi24 ans regardless of when such lands were acquired.

Æ
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60386 Summary Calendar

__________________
GUSTAVO VARGAS-URIBE, a/k/a Gustavo Vargas, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

A29 398 896

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The record does not show that Gustavo Vargas-Uribe filed aformal application for suspension of deportation; thus, VargasUribe has failed to establish that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion when it denied his request to remand the deportation proceedings to the Immigration Judge. Ogbemudia v. INS , 988 F.2d 595, 600 (5th Cir. 1993). This court cannot consider the evidence Vargas-Uribe has submitted with his appellate brief because he did not present itNo. 95-60386 -2- to the Immigration Judge or the BIA. Miranda-Lores v. INS , 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). Although the court may order a remand to consider additional material evidence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2347(c), remand is not appropriate in this case because Vargas-Uribe has failed to show reasonable grounds for his failure to submit this evidence to the BIA. Id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### STANTON, Appellant, *v.*LEWIS, Respondent.

(No. 1,586.)

(Submitted May 26, 1903.

Decided June 1, 1903.)

*Appeal*— Transcript—Judgment *Boll.*

Under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1736, providing that on an appeal from a final judgment tbe appellant must furnish the court with a copy of the judgment roll, the court, on appeal from a final judgment, acquires no jurisdiction where the transcript contains no copy of any summons, proof of service, complaint, or other pleadings, constituting a part of the judgment roll, within Section 1196.

. *Appeal from District Gourt, Gallatin CountyF. K. Armstrong, Judge.*

*268ActioN by Et E. Stanton against E!d. Lewis. From a judgment of the district court dismissing an appeal from a justice of the peace, plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

*Mr. F. F. Stanton, in ‘pro per.*

*Mr. John A. Luce,*for Respondent

Pee Oubiam.

This is an appeal from a final judgment made and entered in the district court of G-allatin county upon the dismissal of an appeal to that court from the justice of the peace' court.. Section 1196 of the .Code of Civil Procedure specifies the papers which constitute the judgment roll. Section 1736 of the same Cbde provides that on an appeal from a final judgment the appellant must furnish the court with a copy of the notice of appeal, of the judgment roll, and of any bill of except tions or statement in the ease upon which the appellant relies. The transcript on appeal in this case contains no copy of any’ complaint, summons, proof of service, or of any other pleadings in the cause. There is therefore no judgment roll, within the meaning of Section 1196, *supra.*The provisions of Section 1736 are mandatory, and without the judgment roll this court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a final judgment.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

*Dismissed.*
EXHIBIT 32

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively,
certify that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary
at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim
any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|               |  |                                                                                                               
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 24, 2006 |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.                                                                                    
|Date           |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and Chief Executive
Officer (principal executive officer)                   
|               | 
|March 24, 2006 |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                                                                                           
|Date           |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 22

- 2657

___________________________ United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Hammaduzzaman Syed
Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ Submitted: May 8, 2023

Filed: August 1, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Ju dges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Hammaduzzaman Syed tried to pay a fifteen

- year

- old girl he met online for

sex , but it turned out he was chatting with an undercover officer . A jury found him guilty of attempted sex trafficking of a minor, see 18 U.S.C. § 15 94(a) , and the-2- district court 1 sentenced him to 120 months in prison. On appeal, Syed ’ s only argument is that counsel was ineffective for failing to request an entrapment instruction and object at various points during trial

. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

What we lack at this point , however, is a “properly developed record ” to evaluate the claim. United States v. Ramirez

- Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006)

. T he trial record does not provide enough information , s ee Massaro v. United States , 538 U.S. 500, 504

– 05 (2003) (noting that the trial record “will not disclose the facts necessary to decide” if counsel was ineffective) , so t he claim will have to be litigated, if at all, in a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

. See Ramirez

- Hernandez , 449 F.3d at 826

– 27 (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”)

. We accordingly dismiss the ap peal.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. , Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      I, Kenny D. Neal, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of First McMinnville Corporation;

      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;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects,
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

May 12, 2006

/s/    Kenny D. Neal
---------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 11

Statement re computation of per-share earnings


Basic per share data is calculated based on the weighted-average number
of common shares outstanding during the reported period.  Diluted per
share data includes any dilution from potential common stock outstanding,
such as the exercise of stock options.


                            Nine Months Ended        Three Months Ended
                              September 30,             September 30,

                            2002         2001         2002        2001
                        ___________  ___________   __________  __________
Numerator:
   Net income(loss)     $10,806,000  $ 9,474,000   $3,599,000  $3,453,000
                        ===========  ===========   ==========  ==========
Denominator:
   Denominator for
     Basic income
     (loss) Per
     share - Weighted
     average Shares       8,221,448    8,649,941    8,206,927   8,266,232

Dilutive potential
   Common shares -
   Employee stock
   Options                   13,669            0       23,708      10,397
                        ___________  ___________   __________  __________

Denominator for
   Diluted earnings
   (loss) per share -
   Adjusted weighted
   Average shares         8,235,117    8,649,941    8,230,635   8,276,629
                        ===========  ===========   ==========  ==========



Note 1:  The weighted-average number of shares outstanding has been
restated for the 4 for 3 stock split, accounted for as a stock dividend,
that occurred during the third quarter of 2002.

                                      24
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 10 (a) (1)

                               AMENDMENTS TO THE
                          ALCOA STOCK ACQUISITION PLAN

Pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan, the Plan is amended as follows:

1.   The definition of "Award" is amended by adding the following sentence to
     the end thereof:

     For purposes of this Plan, payments in 2001 under the Performance
     Enhancement Reward Program will be treated as an Award for the purpose of
     determining Incentive Compensation Deferral Credits and Matching Company
     Credit Awards.

2.   Section 3.2 is amended by replacing "10%," wherever it appears with "1%."

3.   A new Section 5.7 is added as follows:

     Effective September 1, 2000, any transfer of employment to a subsidiary or
     affiliate in which the Company and/or any one or more Subsidiaries have at
     least a 20% ownership interest will not be considered a termination in
     Continuous Service for purposes of this Article V - Distributions.

4.   The second and third sentences of Section 5.4 are deleted in their entirety
     and replaced with the following:

     A Participant's election to receive installments must be made at least 6
     months prior to his or her retirement date.  The Participant's election to
     receive either a lump sum or annual installments shall become irrevocable 6
     months prior to the Participant's retirement date, or at such other time as
     may be approved by the Committee.

5.  In all other respects the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 3.1.1
                                  -------------


                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           MAHASKA INVESTMENT COMPANY



TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Pursuant to Section 1003 or 1006 of the Iowa Business Corporation Act, the
undersigned corporation adopts the following amendment to the Corporation's
Articles of Incorporation.

1.   The name of the corporation is Mahaska Investment Company.

2.   The corporation's Articles of Incorporation filed on February 14, 1973, as
     previously amended on September 21, 1973, May 15, 1994, May 20, 1996 and
     May 26, 1998, shall be amended as follows:

     "The name of the corporation is MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc."

3.   The date of adoption of the amendment was April 30, 2003.

4.   The number of votes cast for the amendment by each voting group was
     sufficient for approval by that voting group in the manner required by
     Chapter 490 of the Code of Iowa and by the Articles of Incorporation of the
     Company.

5.   The effective date and time of this document shall be the time of filing on
     the date of filing.


                                         MAHASKA INVESTMENT COMPANY


                                         By:  /s/ Charles S. Howard
                                              -------------------------------
                                              NAME:  Charles S. Howard
                                              TITLE: Chairman, President & CEO


STATE OF IOWA                       )
                                    :SS
COUNTY OF MAHASKA                   )

     On the 8th day of May, 2003, before me, a Notary Public in and for the
State of Iowa, personally appeared Charles S. Howard, to me personally known,
who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the President of the Corporation
executing the foregoing instrument, that said instrument was signed on behalf of
the Corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and that Charles S.
Howard, as such officer, acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the
voluntary act and deed of the Corporation, by it and by him voluntarily
executed.



                                              /s/ Karen K. Binns
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Karen K. Binns
                                              Notary Public in and for the State
                                              of Iowa