alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41279

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FLORENTINO GARCIA-MORENO, also known as ValentinoGarcia-Garza, also

known as Tino Garcia-Moreno,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1177-1

Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Florentino GarciaMoreno has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia-Moreno has not filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-41279 Document: 00512278195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
No. 12-41279

for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-41279 Document: 00512278195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
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 Annual Report of
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary L. Whitlock,
Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that:





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





2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Gary L. WhitlockGary
      L. WhitlockExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 11,
      2010
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-05873, 33-76120, 333-05959, 333-76122, 333-05957,
333-18935, 333-18883, 333-18885, 333-30841, 333-30211, 333-31901, 333-31895, 333-43757,
333-60365, 333-91995, 333-84751, 333-40914, 333-48116 and 333-60862 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement Nos.
33-94532, 333-09109, 333-50775, 333-50777 and 333-53351 on Forms S-3 of Spherion Corporation of our report dated
February 6, 2002 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's change in method of accounting for derivative instruments to conform to
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 133 described in Note 1), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Spherion Corporation for the year ended
December 28, 2001.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Fort
Lauderdale, Florida
March 22, 2002

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-CV-12299-DT

JOSEPH L. ZAJAC,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

AND SETTING DEADLINE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pending before the court is a motion to amend the complaint, filed by Plaintiff

United States of America, on January 6, 2010. No response has been filed, and the

time for filing a response has passed. The court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. 

The decision whether to grant leave to amend the pleadings is governed by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Rule 15 provides that, at this stage in the litigation,

“a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the

court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 15(a)(2). “In the decision whether to permit an amendment, some of the factors

which may be considered by the trial court are undue ‘delay in filing, lack of notice to the

opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of

amendment.’” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990)

(citing Hageman v. Signal L.P. Gas, Inc., 486 F.2d 479, 484 (6th Cir. 1973)).
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-12299.ZAJAC.GrantAmendComplaint.wpd

2

Plaintiff initiated this action on June 15, 2009, to reduce Defendant Joseph

Zajac’s tax assessments to judgment. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks a judgment for the tax

liability owed for tax years 1995 through 2000, and 2004 through 2007. On November

9, 2009, the court issued a scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16. The scheduling order set February 1, 2010, as the final day to seek amendments. 

On January 6, 2010, well before this deadline, Plaintiff filed its motion to amend, in

which it seeks to amend the complaint to seek a judgment against Defendant for an

additional tax year, 2003. Having reviewed the motion, the court finds good cause for

Plaintiff to amend. Adding an additional year to the ten years already included will not

unduly burden Defendant and will instead streamline these proceedings. In the

absence of any opposition by Defendant, the court does not find any reason to deny the

motion. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend [Dkt # 12] is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint by February 19, 2010. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 10, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, February 10, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4165

AN ACT

To provide for certain changes with respect to retion and Nationality Act. permit pursuant to section 235 of the Immigra- quirements for a Canadian border boat landing
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4165

AN ACT

To provide for certain changes with respect to requirements

for a Canadian border boat landing permit pursuant

to section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4165 EH

1 SECTION 1. CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT.

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later

3 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,

4 the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commis5 sioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall issue re6 vised regulations for the implementation of section 235 of

7 the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the

8 requirement that individuals travelling between the United

9 States and Canada by boat obtain a permit which is con10 sistent with the following guidelines:

11 (1) An individual may request a form to apply

12 for the permit through Immigration and Naturaliza13 tion Service offices, the mail, or an internet address.

14 (2) The Immigration and Naturalization Serv15 ice shall establish a toll-free information number to

16 provide information and respond to inquiries regard17 ing the permit, including how to obtain the forms,

18 where to file the forms, and the cost of the permit.

19 (3) In consultation with the chief executive offi20 cers of States where individuals affected by the per21 mit requirement reside, develop alternate procedures

22 for acquiring the necessary permits, including in

23 conjunction with State fishing and boat licenses.

24 (4) In the case of a boat of no more than 65

25 feet in length (including a boat used for commercial

26 purposes) on a trip between the United States and
3

•HR 4165 EH

1 Canada of not more than 72 hours duration, a Unit2 ed States citizen passenger (who is neither an owner

3 nor operator of the boat) need not obtain a permit

4 pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration and Na5 tionality Act if carrying a United States passport for

6 the duration of the trip.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CESAREO TAPIA

- IBARRA, AKA Julio Cesar

- Hernandez,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER , Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73410
Agency No. A205

- 489

- 712

MEMORANDUM *

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

S ubmitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges

. Cesareo Tapia

- Ibarra , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. 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

NOV 30 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73410

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen , and we review de novo
questions of law

. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 4 00 F.3d 785 , 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 200 5 )

. We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in den ying Tapia

- Ibarra’s
motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where he did

not show that he failed to appear at his hearing due to circumstances beyond his

control. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (defining
exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien) ;

Valencia

- Fragoso v. INS , 321 F.3d 1204, 1205

- 06 (9th Cir. 2003) (no exceptional
circumstances where petitioner was late to her hearing due to confusion about the

time an d did not show eligibility for relief ).
We reject Tapia

- Ibarra’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider relevant

evidence , that Singh v. INS , 295 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2002), controls the result of

his case , or that the agency otherwise applied the wrong standard

. See Najmabadi

v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990

- 91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately
considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision) ; Fernandez v.

Gonzales , 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome th e presumption that the BIA did review the record) ; Valencia

- Fragoso , 321 F.3d at3 16

- 73410

1205

- 06 (distinguishing Singh ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WORLD SERIES OF GOLF, INC. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), Joseph F. Martinez, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.
|

|Date:	November 13,
2009 |  | By: | /s/ Joseph F. Martinez                          
|----------------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |     | Joseph F. Martinez                              
|                        |  |     | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  |     | and Principal Accounting Officer                





This certification accompanies each
    Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
  purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0326

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT EARL SNYDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 15, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 19 2023

07/19/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0326
1

 As stated on the record, Defendant is not required to produce documentation as to

sales by Peiker Acustic GmbH & Co. KG, Defendant’s German parent company.

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PREMIER SALES & MARKETING, INC.,

No. 09-10610

Plaintiff,

District Judge Paul D. Borman

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

PEIKER ACUSTIC, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

For the reasons and under the terms stated on the record on February 16, 2010,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket #21] is GRANTED.1

Defendant will respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests within 30 days of the date

of this Order. As to any material in which privilege is claimed, Defendant shall produce a

privilege log.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: February 16, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on February 16, 2010.

S/Gina Wilson 

Judicial Assistant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

VIRGINIA E. PELLOW,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 09-11587

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

3/31/2010, and noted that no objections were filed by either party, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is adopted and entered as the findings and conclusions

of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: April 21, 2010
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on April 21,

2010.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4089 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4089

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide that recently enacted 
    provisions requiring payment of Federal benefits in the form of 
   electronic funds transfers do not apply with respect to benefits 
payable under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program 
               under title II of the Social Security Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 1996

 Mr. English of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide that recently enacted 
    provisions requiring payment of Federal benefits in the form of 
   electronic funds transfers do not apply with respect to benefits 
payable under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program 
               under title II of the Social Security Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR OASDI BENEFITS FROM MANDATORY PAYMENT IN FORM 
              OF ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS.

    Paragraph (3) of section 3332(j) of title 31, United States Code 
(added by section 31001(x)(1)(A) of the Omnibus Consolidated 
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Debt Collection Improvement 
Act of 1996; Public Law 104-134)) is amended in the last sentence by 
inserting after ``1986'' the following: ``or any benefit payment under 
the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II 
of the Social Security Act''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ricky SALMON, Appellant. Ricky SALMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66529, 68994.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Oct. 15, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 8,1997.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his conviction by a jury of two counts of attempted kidnapping in violation of § 564.011 RSMo 1986, three counts of armed criminal action in violation of § 571.015 RSMo 1986, and one count of robbery in the first degree, in violation of § 569.020 RSMo 1986.1 On appeal, Defendant seeks plain error review of two instructions. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no plain error. An extended opinion would have *689no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief but has not briefed any errors in that ruling. That appeal is therefore deemed abandoned.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL BANNASCH,

Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11564

v.

PAUL D. BORMAN

SHERRY L. BURT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Respondent.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO BAR A

RESPONSIVE PLEADING AND FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Petitioner Daniel Bannasch has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his state

convictions for two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Petitioner alleges that (1) the

trial court used an improper standard when denying his motion to quash the information, (2-4)

trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, (5) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and (6)

the evidence was insufficient to sustain Petitioner’s convictions. 

On October 30, 2009, Respondent filed an answer to the habeas petition in which he

argues that Petitioner’s first two claims lack merit and that the remaining claims are procedurally

defaulted. On November 2, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to bar Respondent from filing a

response to the habeas petition. On the same day, Petitioner filed a combined motion for an

evidentiary hearing and to amend the habeas petition. These motions currently are pending

before the Court. 

Petitioner’s motion to bar Respondent from filing a responsive pleading is based on

Petitioner’s mistaken notion that Respondent failed to file a timely response to the habeas

petition. The responsive pleading was filed on October 30, 2009, three days before the deadline
2

of November 2, 2009, set by the Magistrate Judge on May 4, 2009. See Dkt. #4. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s motion to bar Respondent from filing a responsive pleading [Dkt. #8] is DENIED. 

Petitioner’s other motion seeks not to amend the habeas petition, but to have an

evidentiary hearing to develop the facts on Petitioner’s claims about trial and appellate counsel. 

“Generally, a habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in federal court if the petition

‘alleges sufficient grounds for release, relevant facts are in dispute, and the state courts did not

hold a full and fair evidentiary hearing.’” Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 459 (6th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Wilson v. Kemna, 12 F.3d 145, 146 (8th Cir. 1994)). The Court is not persuaded that

Petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are sufficient grounds for release. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition and for an evidentiary hearing [Dkt. #9]

is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will reconsider the motion, if necessary, following its

review of the state court record. It will not be necessary for Petitioner to renew his motion.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 7, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

April 7, 2010.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
Exhibit No. 17
Headway Corporate Resources, Inc.
Form 10-KSB
File No. 0-23170



KINGSTON
 SMITH

Chartered Accountants

Incorporating Letchfords

27 March, 1997

Mr. Barry Roseman
Headway Corporate Resources, Inc.
850 Third Avenue
NEW YORK
NY 10022
USA

Dear Sir:

HEADWAY CORPORATE RESOURCES, INC.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of our
report   dated  26th  March  1997,  relating  to  the   financial
statements   (not   presented  separately  in  the   Registration
Statement)  of Whitney Group (Europe) Limited for the year  ended
31 December 1995.

Yours faithfully

KINGSTON SMITH