alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S HA OB O R E N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 72873 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 901- 049 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B e f o r e : R A W L I N S O N , N .R . S M I T H , an dC H R I S T E N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . S ha obo R e n, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED SEP 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 11- 72873

r e vi e w f ors ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e the a ge nc y ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs , appl y i ng the st andards gov erni ng advers e c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s c re at ed by the R E A L ID A c t. Sh restha v. H

older , 59 0 F . 3d 10 34 , 10 39 -40 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). W e deny i n p art a n dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on base d o n the om i ss i on fr om R en’ s w ri tt en st at em entof the arre stand p hysi ca l harm h e a lle g e d lys u f

f e r e d . See Zam an ov v. H older , 64 9 F . 3d 96 9, 97 3-74 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( advers e c re di bi l i ty f i nd i ng supp ort ed w here i nci dent s pet i t i on erom i tt ed f r o m a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n m a te r ia llya lte r e dc la im ) ; Shr es tha , 590 F . 3d a t1046- 47 (“A lth o u g h in co n sisten cies n o lo n g ern ee dto g o to th e h ea rt o f th e p etit io n er ’s cl ai m , w hen an i ncon si st encyi s atthe heartof the cl ai m i tdo ub t l es s i s of gre at w e i ght . ” ) . I n the abs e nc e of c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , R e n’ s a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). F i na l l y , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rR e n’ s c l a i m f orr e l i e f unde rthe C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e b e c au s e h e d idn o t ap p e a l th e I J ’s d e n ia l o f r e lie f to th e B I A . Se e B arr on v . A s hc r of , 35 8 F . 3d 67 4, 67 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( thi s c ou rt l ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew cont ent i on s notra i se d b ef ore the B IA ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Advanced Accessory Systems, LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Terence C. Seikel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (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/ Terence C. Seikel
---------------------------
Terence C. Seikel
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2002
#### New York State Dam Limited Partnership, Appellant, v Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Respondent.

Submitted February 5, 1996;

decided April 2, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying appellant’s motion for renewal or reargument, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
#### Albert Hall, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Vann, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CARREKER CORPORATION'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          24,821
<SECURITIES>                                    16,087
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,250
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,376
<PP&E>                                          12,531
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,714
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,881
<SALES>                                             32
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,480
<CGS>                                               25
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,942
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,298
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,644
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of Northwest AirlinesCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Neal S. Cohen, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:May 10, 2007
| /s/ Neal S. Cohen            |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Neal S. Cohen                |
| Executive Vice President and |
| Chief Financial Officer      |

 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”).  Such certification will not bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actof 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Companyspecifically incorporates it by reference.

1

----
#### BROADFOOT IRON WORKS, INC., v. EUGENE B. BUGG and E. I. BUGG, Trading as WILMINGTON HOTEL.

(Filed 22 May, 1935.)

Mechanics’ Liens A b — Mechanic’s lien under O. S., 2435, is based upon retention of possession of property by mechanic.

Where a mechanic repairs certain personal property at the request of the lessee, and without request or knowledge on the part of the owner, and the mechanic never has possession of the property, but possession is returned to the owner by the lessee upon the termination of the lease, the mechanic may not hold the owner liable for the reasonable value of the repairs, the statute relating to mechanics’ liens, O. S., 2435, being applicable only where the mechanic retains possession of the property.

Appeal by defendants from *Grady, J.,*at October Term, 1934, of New Hanover.

Reversed.

Tbis is an action to recover of tbe defendants for certain repairs made by tbe plaintiff on articles of personal property owned by tbe defendants.

At tbe time tbe repairs were made tbe property was in tbe possession of a lessee of tbe defendants. Tbe repairs were made at tbe request of tbe lessee, and not at tbe request or with tbe knowledge of tbe defendants. Tbe reasonable value of tbe repairs was $55.50. Tbe lessee admitted bis liability to tbe plaintiff for tbis amount.

At tbe date of tbe commencement of tbe action tbe property wbicb bad been repaired by tbe plaintiff was in the possession of tbe defendants, to whom it bad been delivered by tbe lessee after tbe repairs were made, upon tbe expiration of tbe lease. Tbe property bad at no time been in tbe possession of tbe plaintiff.

At tbe close of all the evidence tbe defendants moved for judgment as of nonsuit. Tbe motion was denied, and tbe defendants excepted.

Issues were submitted to tbe jury, and judgment was rendered tbat plaintiff recover of tbe defendants tbe sum of $55.50, with interest and costs. Tbe defendants appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*285*Stevens & Burgwin for plaintiff.*

*M¿Norton & Mclntire for defendants.*

Pee Oueiam.

There was error in the refusal of defendants’ motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. There was no evidence tending to show that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the repairs made on their property by the plaintiff, at the request of their lessee, and while the property was in his possession.

This is not an action to recover on a lien on personal property under the provisions of 0. S., 2435. The statute is applicable only when the property repaired by an artisan or mechanic is in his possession. In such case, the artisan or mechanic may retain possession of the property which he has repaired, at the request of “the owner or legal possessor,” until his just and reasonable charges for his work and materials have been paid. *Johnson v.*Yates, 183 N. C., 24, 110 S. E., 630, is readily distinguished from the instant case. In that case it was held that the mechanic who had repaired an automobile at the request of a mortgagor had the right to retain possession of the automobile as against the mortgagee until his reasonable charges had been paid.

The judgment is

Reversed.
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 SteelCloud, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas P. Dunne, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.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.

Dated: June 10, 2004

                                            By: /S/ THOMAS P. DUNNE
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Name: Thomas P. Dunne
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>
#### The St. Nicholas National Bank, Respondent, v. Percy R. King, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Van Brunt, P. J.
Summary of Annual Base Salaries Approved for Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.35 
 Annual Base Salaries Approved for Named Executive Officers 
 of Worthington Industries,
Inc. 
 In June 2008, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved the base salaries based on the New Compensation
Program, individual performance assessments and market data for the named executive officers set forth below, with the exception of Mr. Rose. The Company hired Mr. Rose on December 1, 2008 to replace John S. Christie, former Chief
Financial Officer who retired from the Company at the end of July, 2008: 
  

				
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	Base Salary
	 John P. McConnell
 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	600,000
	 George P. Stoe
 President and Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	550,000
	 B. Andrew Rose
 Vice President – Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	350,000
	 Richard G. Welch
 Controller
	  	$	225,000
	 Mark A. Russell
 President – The Worthington Steel Company
	  	$	385,000
	 Harry A. Goussetis
 President – Worthington Cylinder Corporation
	  	$	307,000
Summary of Board of Director Compensation of Mosaic



 Exhibit 10.iii.f. 
 THE MOSAIC COMPANY 
 SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 Non-Employee Directors 
 The policy adopted by the
Board of Directors (the “Board”) of The Mosaic Company (“Mosaic”) for fiscal 2009 provides for cash compensation to non-employee directors as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 an annual cash retainer of $170,000 to the Chairman of the Board and $85,000 to each other director; 


  

	 	•	 	 an annual cash retainer of $20,000 to the Chairman of the Audit Committee and $10,000 to other members of this Committee; 


  

	 	•	 	 an annual cash retainer of $15,000 to the Chairman of the Compensation Committee and $5,000 to other members of this Committee; 


  

	 	•	 	 an annual cash retainer of $10,000 to each director who serves as chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, Environmental, Health and Safety
Committee and Special Transactions Committee; 


  

	 	•	 	 The Special Transactions Committee was disbanded in December 2008 at which time the Cargill Transactions Subcommittee of the Corporate Governance and Nominating
Committee was established to review material relationships with Cargill, Incorporated and/or its affiliates. Upon establishing the Cargill Transactions Subcommittee, the Board approved an annual cash retainer of $10,000 to be paid to the Chair of
the Cargill Transactions Subcommittee; and 


  

	 	•	 	 The Board established a special committee comprised of all of the independent directors on the Board to consider governance matters relating to the expiration of an
investor rights agreement entered into with Cargill, Incorporated on August 17, 2006. The Board authorized a cash stipend in the amount of $25,000 to be paid to the Chair of the Special Committee. 


 In addition, the policy in effect during fiscal 2009 provided for an annual grant of restricted stock units providing grants of our common stock, valued
at $170,000 for the Chairman of the Board and $85,000 for each other director. 
 Mosaic does not pay meeting fees or provide any perquisites
to our directors. Mosaic does reimburse directors for travel and business expenses incurred in connection with meeting attendance. 
 Employee Directors

 Directors who are employees receive no director fees or other separate compensation for service on the Board or any committee of the
Board for the period during which they are employees.
#### Jirah J. Foote and others, executors, Plaintiff, v. Lucy F. Bruggerhof, as administratrix, etc., and others, Defendants.

—Motion denied with ten dollars costs. Opinion

*Per CuHam.*
**Exhibit 32**
  **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO** **18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**
 **As ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**
 **THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of State Financial Services Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, based on his knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six months ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
 By: /s/ Michael J. Falbo
 Michael J. Falbo
 November 9, 2004
 
 
 By: /s/ Daniel L. Westrope
 Daniel L. Westrope
 November 9, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         679,258
<SECURITIES>                                 7,518,108
<RECEIVABLES>                                  449,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,273,303
<PP&E>                                      70,873,495
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,429,189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,917,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,078,027
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,385,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,917,565
<SALES>                                      4,778,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,808,232
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,130,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,162,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                515,069
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   515,069
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.97
        

</TABLE>
#### HERBERT JOHNSON, Executor, etc., of NATHANIEL JOHNSON, Deceased, Plaintiff, *v.*ABIJAH GILBERT, Impleaded with GEORGE *W.*TUTTLE, Defendant.

*Bond of indemnity to sTieriff, on seizure of goods*— “ *to Tceep, hew harmless and inderhnify*” *—judgment against sheriff for such seizure*— constitutes *a breach thereof*— *Sheriff need not pay judgment before suing on bond.*

MotioN for a new trial on exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance at the General Term.

This action was brought upon a bond of indemnity, executed by the defendants to Gamaliel Benjamin, sheriff of Allegany county, and assigned to plaintiff’s testator. The condition of the bond was: “ That if the obligors shall well and truly keep and bear harmless and indemnify the said sheriff and his deputies, and all and every person and persons who have aided or assisted said sheriff in seizing said goods and chattels, or in selling the same, or who shall hereafter aid and assist said sheriff in keeping possession of the same, or in removing said goods and chattels or in selling the same (if the said sheriff shall be ordered to. do so in pursuance of an order of said judge), of and from all harm, let, trouble, damages, costs, suits, actions, judgments and executions that then, or may at any time arise, come or be brought against him, them or any of them, etc., then said obligation to be void,” etc.

The plaintiff showed, upon the trial, the recovery of a judgment against the sheriff for the seizing and taking possession of the said goods and chattels mentioned in the condition of the said bond.

The court at General Term say: “ This was a clear breach of the bond, and entitled the plaintiff to maintain the action thereon within the cases of *Bancroft*v. *Winspear*(44 Barb., 209); *Chace*
      *470y. *Hinman*(8 Wend., 452); *Rockfeller*v. *DonneU/y*(8 Cow., 628), and *Gilbert*v. *Wiman*(1 Comst., 561).

The defendants, by the terms of the condition, were to *‘keep, bear harmless,*and *indemnify,*of and from all harm, let, trouble, damages, costs, suits, actions, judgments and executions.

Certainly, when an action or suit was brought and proceeded to judgment and execution, the condition was broken, and a right of action was immediately given to the sheriff. It was not the intent of the parties that the sheriff should pay such judgment before he could commence an action on the said bond.”

*Hart*cfe *McGuire,*for the plaintiff. *George 8. Jones,*for the defendant.

Opinion by

Smith, J.

Present — MunniN, P. J., Smith and Talcott, JJ.

New trial denied, and judgment ordered for plaintiff on verdict.
| 1、   | LB1~2 |
|-----------------------|-------|

| 设计院参数: | Q:187cmh  Parameters from Designing Institute |
|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|

| SUNTEC:  | Q:187cmh |
|---------------|----------|

| 2、  | LB3~4 |
|-----------------|-------|

| 设计院参数: | Q:280cmh Parameters from Designing Institute |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|

| SUNTEC:  | Q:279cmh |
|---------------|----------|

| 3、   | L2-2~4 |
|-----------------------|--------|

| 设计院参数: | Q:112~192cmh Parameters from Designing Institute |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|

| SUNTEC:  | Q:147cmh |
|---------------|----------|

| 4、   | L1-3~5 |
|-----------------------|--------|

| 设计院参数: | Q:131~225cmh Parameters from Designing Institute |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|

| SUNTEC:  | Q:170cmh |
|---------------|----------|

----