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

|CERTIFICATION OF                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
      OFFICER
|PURSUANT TO                                                      
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                                          
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                           
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002                    

I, Richard W. Donaldson, the Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of Pengram Corporation (the Company), hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2010, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                           

| | By:    |                                
| | ------ | -------------------------------
| |        | /s/
      Richard W. Donaldson 
| | Name:  | RICHARD W. DONALDSON           
| |        |                                
| | Title: | Principal Executive Officer and
| |        | Principal Financial Officer    
| |        |                                
| | Date:  | April 19, 2010                 
| |        |                                

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELVIS ALEXANDER SANCHEZ GALINDO, AKA Elvis Galindo, AKA Elvis Sanchez, AKA Elvis Alexander Sanchez, Petitioner,
v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16-71006 Agency No. A205-720-056
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 5, 2022 ** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, S.R. THOMAS, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Elvis Alexander Sanchez Galindo, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to affirm the 

# FILED
APR 7 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). To qualify for withholding of removal, Sanchez Galindo has to show that he experienced or will experience persecution inflicted either by the government or by an organization that the government is unable or unwilling to control. See Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales , 458 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2006). To receive protection under CAT, Sanchez Galindo has to prove that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon his return to Guatemala by or with the acquiescence of a public official. See id. at 1059. Sanchez Galindo testified extensively at his immigration hearing, however, that authorities in Guatemala successfully investigated, prosecuted, and imprisoned the criminals who were targeting him. In light of the police’s extensive involvement in protecting Sanchez Galindo from harm, the IJ correctly concluded, and the BIA properly affirmed, that Sanchez Galindo does not qualify for withholding of removal or protection under CAT. The petition is DENIED
.

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY W. MABRY, JR.,

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 09-cv-12154

v. HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

 

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., et al.,

Defendant(s).

________________________________/

JUDGMENT

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to this Court’s Opinion and Order

dated September 7, 2011, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated at Detroit, Michigan this 7th day of September.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: s/C. Cohron

APPROVED:

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on September 7, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

Certificationof Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

The undersigned executiveofficer of Trans World Corporation (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that theRegistrant’s Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrants.

 

 
|   | /s/ Rami S. Ramadan                                        |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  Rami  S. Ramadan                          |
|   | Title:  President,  Chief Executive Officer, and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                    |

 

 

Date:  March 31, 2003

 

1

----
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3807

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow penalty-free

withdrawals from certain retirement plans during periods of unemployment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 12, 1996

Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. STARK, Mr.

MATSUI, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. COYNE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, and Mr.

NEAL of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow penalty-free withdrawals from certain retirement plans during periods of unemployment.

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

3 SECTION 1. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM CERTAIN PLANS MAY BE

4 USED WITHOUT PENALTY DURING PERIODS

5 OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 72(t) of

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions

8 to 10-percent additional tax on early distributions from
2

•HR 3807 IH

1 qualified retirement plans) is amended by adding at the

2 end the following new subparagraph:

3 ‘‘(D) DISTRIBUTIONS FROM CERTAIN

4 PLANS DURING PERIODS OF UNEMPLOYMENT.—

5 Distributions from an individual retirement

6 plan, or from amounts attributable to employer

7 contributions made pursuant to elective defer8 rals described in subparagraph (A) or (C) of

9 section 402(g)(3) or section 501(c)(18)(D)(iii),

10 to an individual after separation from employ11 ment if—

12 ‘‘(i) such individual has received un13 employment compensation for 12 consecu14 tive weeks under any Federal or State un15 employment compensation law by reason of

16 such separation, and

17 ‘‘(ii) such distributions are made dur18 ing the 1-year period beginning on the date

19 of such separation.

20 To the extent provided in regulations, a self-em21 ployed individual shall be treated as meeting

22 the requirements of clause (i) if, under Federal

23 or State law, the individual would have received

24 unemployment compensation but for the fact

25 the individual was self-employed.’’.
3

•HR 3807 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

2 (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 72(t)(2) of

3 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘or (C)’’ and in4 serting ‘‘, (C) or (D)’’.

5 (2) Section 401(k)(2)(B)(i) is amended by

6 striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subclause (III), by strik7 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of subclause (IV) and inserting

8 ‘‘or’’, and by inserting after subclause (IV) the fol9 lowing new subclause:

10 ‘‘(V) the date on which a period

11 referred to in section 72(t)(2)(D) be12 gins, and’’.

13 (3) Section 403(b)(11) of such Code is amend14 ed by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (A),

15 by striking the period at the end of subparagraph

16 (B) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by inserting after sub17 paragraph (B) the following new subparagraph:

18 ‘‘(C) for distributions to which 72(t)(2)(D)

19 applies.’’

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

21 this section shall apply to payments and distributions after

22 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re: Civil Case No. 08-14635

M.T.G., INC. d/b/a/ MATRIX TECHNOLOGIES Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor

GROUP, 

Debtor.

_________________________________________/

CHARLES J. TAUNT, PLUNKETT &

COONEY, P.C., COMERICA BANK,

and MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK

& STONE, P.L.C.,

U. S. Bankruptcy

Appellants/Appellees, Case No. 95-48268-G

Chapter 7

v. Hon. Thomas J. Tucker

GUY C. VINING and TODD M. HALBERT,

Appellees/Appellants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT’S

 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on Bankruptcy Court Judge Thomas J. Tucker’s Memorandum

and Recommendation of October 31, 2008, denying Defendants’ Charles J. Taunt and Charles J.

Taunt & Associates, P.C. Motion to Withdraw References as to Any Remaining Jury Triable Issues

[Dkt. #1].

The court has reviewed Defendants’ motion, the file, and Judge Tucker’s Memorandum and

Recommendation. The court finds that the law cited by Judge Tucker has been correctly placed and

is controlling in this matter. 

THEREFORE, the court will accept the Judge Tucker’s Memorandum and Recommendation

of October 31, 2008, as the findings and conclusions of this court.

2:08-cv-14635-ADT-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 01/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 11
-2-

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bankruptcy Court Judge Tucker’s Memorandum and

Recommendation of October 31, 2008 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2009 s/Anna Diggs Taylor

ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to

their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 22,

2009.

s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14635-ADT-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 01/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PT PUKUAFU INDAH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-10943

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

NEWMONT MINING CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

On November 4, 2009, this Court issued an opinion and order granting Defendant

Newmont Mining Corporation’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiffs and their

counsel. On January 19, 2010, this Court entered an order setting the amount of the

sanctions at $107,369.53 and ordering Plaintiffs and their counsel to pay the amount

within thirty days. On March 5, 2010, when neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel had

complied with the order, Defendant Newmont Mining Corporation (“Newmont”) filed a

Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. Newmont maintains that a separate judgment for the

amount awarded as Rule 11 sanctions is required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 58(a)– as the attorneys’ fees were not awarded pursuant to Rule 54. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3). Newmont also argues that it needs a judgment to pursue collection of

the amount awarded.

The Court has found no authority or guidance in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure or decisions of the federal courts with respect to its ability to issue an
1

It is clear to the Court that it now lacks jurisdiction to amend the judgment entered on

October 6, 2009 to include the sanctions award and that it lacked jurisdiction to do so when

sanctions were awarded on January 19, 2010, as Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with respect to

the Court’s judgment on December 2, 2009 and no motion to amend the judgment was timely

filed. See Griggs v. Provident Consumers Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 402

(1982); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60.

2

The Court reluctantly enters two judgments in this case– albeit with respect to different

issues. However, it could not come up with an alternative to provide Newmont the ability to

collect the amount awarded and, as indicated in the text, found no guidance elsewhere on how to

handle the situation. If this issue is subject to appellate review, the Court asks the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals for guidance on how to handle this situation in the future.

2

additional judgment in this matter or the proper response to Newmont’s motion.1 It

appears, however, that a judgment for the amount of the sanctions awarded is needed for

Newmont to pursue collection of the sanctions imposed.2

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1);

MCR 3.101. The Court, therefore, is granting Newmont’s request.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Newmont

Corporation against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel, Reifman & Glass, P.C., jointly and

severally, in the amount of $107,369.53.

DATE: April 26, 2010 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In connection with the Annual Report of Jameson Inns, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    THOMAS W.
KITCHINThomas W. Kitchin, Chief Executive Officer March 31, 2005/s/    CRAIG R.
KITCHINCraig R. Kitchin, President and Chief Financial Officer March 31, 2005
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3621

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Michael Lee Loisel, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 17, 2006

Filed: May 22, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lee Loisel appeals the district court’s1

 imposition of a sentence of ten

years of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2). We affirm.

Loisel pled guilty to possessing child pornography, but appeals his sentence of

ten years arguing the district court erred in applying an enhancement under

§ 2252A(b)(2). Section 2252A(b)(2) provides a person convicted of possessing child
-2-

pornography shall be sentenced to a minimum of ten years of imprisonment “if such

person has a prior conviction under . . . the laws of any State relating to aggravated

sexual abuse, sexual abuse or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or a ward.”

In a prior state proceeding, Loisel pled guilty to the charge of Assault with

Intent to Commit Sexual Abuse (No Bodily Injury) under Iowa law, for which he

received a deferred judgment. Loisel argues this deferred judgment does not

constitute a prior conviction under Iowa law for purposes of § 2252A(b)(2).

Loisel’s argument, however, is foreclosed by our ruling in United States v.

Storer, 413 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding defendant’s nolo contendere plea to

felony lewd and lascivious conduct under Florida law along with state court’s finding

of guilt, despite the withholding of adjudication and sentencing, constituted a prior

conviction under § 2252A). In Storer, we specifically held § 2252A(b)(2) applies

federal law to determine whether a state conviction qualifies as a prior conviction. Id.

at 921-22. Loisel does not dispute whether federal law considers a deferred judgment

under state law to be a prior conviction under § 2252A(b)(2). See United States v.

Fuchness, 422 F.3d 698, 703 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding Iowa deferred judgment for

narcotics violation was prior conviction for sentencing purposes). Instead, Loisel asks

us to overturn Storer. We, of course, cannot do so. See United States v. Wright, 22

F.3d 787, 788 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting we are bound by our precedent unless such

precedent is overturned by the court sitting en banc). 

Accordingly, we conclude Loisel’s prior deferred judgment under Iowa law is

a prior conviction for purposes of § 2252A(b)(2). We therefore affirm the district

court.

______________________________
Exhibit 23.1
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-120350) of Equity One, Inc.,(2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-158195) of Equity One, Inc.,(3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-165109) of Equity One, Inc.,(4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-166800) of Equity One, Inc.,(5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-99577) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option
Plan and the Amended and Restated 2000 Executive Incentive Compensation Plan of Equity One,
Inc.,(6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103368) pertaining to the 1989 Stock Option
Plan of Equity One, Inc. and the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan of IRT Property Company,(7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-118347) pertaining to the Amended and Restated
Executive Incentive Compensation Plan for Equity One, Inc.,(8)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-150706) pertaining to the First Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement, dated August 28, 2006, by and between Equity One, Inc. and
Jeffrey S. Olson and the Amended and Restated 2000 Executive Incentive Compensation Plan of
Equity One, Inc.,
  
 
 - 123 -
#### Christopher J. DE MANGIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 0298-87.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

March 21, 1990.

*957On appellant’s petition for discretionary review: judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed.

CLINTON, J., dissents with note.

TEAGUE, J., dissents.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Tribal-State Compact Taking Effect. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is given that the State of Oklahoma and the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-GAH-PAH) Off-Track Wagering Compact is considered approved and is in effect. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         August 5, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula L. Hart, Acting Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Mailstop 3657—Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(D), compacts that are approved or considered to have been approved are effective upon publication of a notice thereof in the                     **Federal Register**                    . No action was taken to approve or disapprove this Compact within forty-five (45) days of its submittal to the Secretary for approval; therefore, in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C), this Compact is considered to have been approved by the Secretary, but only to the extent that it is consistent with the provisions of the IGRA.                 

Dated: July 28, 2008. 

George T. Skibine, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development.

[FR Doc. E8-17851 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P