alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADELAIDE NZEUSSEU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71325

Agency No. A095-414-778

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Adelaide Nzeusseu, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petition for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

MAR 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71325

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d

988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. 

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

reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s

final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Nzeusseu failed to present evidence

of changed circumstances in Cameroon to qualify for an exception to the time

limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (underlying

adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances

immaterial).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 Greater Asia Realty Holdings, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tay
Chong Weng, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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.

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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.

|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ Tay
  Chong Weng
|                    

By: Tay Chong
Weng
Title: Chief Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Director


Dated: June 1, 2009

17

---
Exhibit 32.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael O. Matthews, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.

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.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 5, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael O. Matthews                     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Michael O. Matthews                         
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 535

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning

National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Corning National Fish

5 Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.
2

•HR 535 EH

1 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCH2 ERY TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.

3 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

5 of the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas with6 out reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the

7 United States in and to the property described in sub8 section (b), for use by the Arkansas Game and Fish Com9 mission as part of the State of Arkansas fish culture pro10 gram.

11 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

12 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the Corning

13 National Fish Hatchery (popularly known as the William

14 H. Donham State Fish Hatchery), located one mile west

15 of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas State Highway 67 in

16 Clay County, Arkansas, consisting of 137.34 acres (more

17 or less), and all improvements and related personal prop18 erty under the control of the Secretary that is located on

19 that property, including buildings, structures, and equip20 ment.

21 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The prop22 erty conveyed to the State of Arkansas pursuant to this

23 section shall be used by the State for purposes of fishery

24 resources management, and if it is used for any other pur25 pose all right, title, and interest in and to all property

26 conveyed pursuant to this section shall revert to the Unit-
3

•HR 535 EH

1 ed States. The State of Arkansas shall ensure that the

2 property reverting to the United States is in substantially

3 the same or better condition as at the time of transfer.

Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 535

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

of Arkansas.the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State
#### In the Matter of the Application of Alfred Roelker, Jr., for License and Permission to Practice as an Official Examiner of Title.

Application granted and bond approved. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Burr and Rich, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We have issued our report dated December 17, 2004 accompanying the consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended September 30, 2004 included in
Capitol First Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
September 30, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the
aforementioned report in the Company's Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No.
333-83806) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2002 to
register securities underlying the Non-Qualified Employee Incentive Stock Plan.

/s/ BERKOVITS, LAGO & COMPANY, LLP

Boca Raton, Florida
December 29, 2004
#### Florencio P. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 72-2363.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1972.

Morgan D. Harris, Jeffrey D. Sobel, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Nev., for defendant-appellee.

Before MERRILL, BROWNING and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

For the reasons set forth by the District Court in its order denying habeas corpus, we agree that under the circumstances of this ease the pre-arrest photographic identification by an eye-witness played a negligible role in her in-court identification of appellant and that there was no substantial possibility of mis-identification.1

Affirmed.

1

. We agree with the views expressed by the Supreme Court of Nevada, Hernandez v. State, 87 Nev. 553, 490 P.2d 1245, 1247 (1971), that it is the duty of the state to preserve a record of the photographs used for identification purposes to enable counsel to reconstruct the identification process. However, we agree with that court and with the District Court that failure to meet this duty does not, *per se,*constitute error of constitutional proportions, and that whether due process was lacking depends on the facts of the particular case.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 501

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

rents will not result in the recapture of the benefits of the special

estate tax valuation rules for certain farm and other real property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 13, 1995

Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska 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 provide

that certain cash rents will not result in the recapture

of the benefits of the special estate tax valuation rules

for certain farm and other real property.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farm Estate Fairness

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 501 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO RECAPTURE OF SPECIAL ESTATE TAX VALU2 ATION BENEFIT WHERE QUALIFIED HEIR

3 RENTS ON NET CASH BASIS TO ANOTHER

4 MEMBER OF DECEDENT’S FAMILY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 2032A

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax

7 treatment of dispositions and failures to use for qualified

8 use) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following

9 new paragraph:

10 ‘‘(8) EXCEPTION FOR NET CASH RENTING TO

11 ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER.—For purposes of this

12 subsection, a qualified heir shall not be treated as

13 failing to use the qualified real property in a quali14 fied use solely because such heir rents such property

15 to another member of the decedent’s family on a net

16 cash basis.’’

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

18 (1) The amendment made by this section shall

19 apply with respect to estates of decedents dying

20 after December 31, 1976.

21 (2) If credit or refund of any overpayment of

22 tax resulting from the amendment made by this sec23 tion is barred at any time before the close of the 1-

24 year period beginning on the date of the enactment

25 of this Act by the operation of any law or rule of

26 law, credit or refund of such overpayment shall, nev-
3

•HR 501 IH

1 ertheless, be allowed or made if claim therefor is

2 filed before the close of such 1-year period.

Æ
#### F. E. RONEY et al., Receivers of Robinson-Slagle Lumber Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A. P. PEYTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 4901.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 3, 1935.

Blanchard, Goldstein, Walker & O’Quin, of Shreveport, for appellants.

Cook & Cook, of Shreveport, for appellee.

PEE CÜEIAM.

It being now suggested to this court, supported by the attaching of a copy of the order of the lower court, that F. E. Eoney has been superseded as receiver of the Robinson-Slagle Lumber Company, Inc., by ,C. J. Fernandez, the judgment heretofore rendered by us (159 So. 469) is amended to run in favor of C. J. Fernandez as receiver of Eobinson-Sla-gle Lumber Company, Inc., in place of F. E. Eoney.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard J. LYNCH, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69020.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 25, 1997.

Raymund J. Capeloviteh, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Fernando Bermudez, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for plaintiflfrespon-dent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury of two counts of second degree burglary, § 569.170, RSMo 1986, and one count of felony stealing, § 570.080, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a class X offender to consecutive prison terms of seven years on each count. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 453 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 453

  To provide for an additional temporary and permanent district court 
              judgeship for the northern district of Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 1995

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for an additional temporary and permanent district court 
              judgeship for the northern district of Ohio.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT JUDGESHIP FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.

    The existing district judgeship for the northern district of Ohio 
authorized by section 203(c) of the Federal Judgeship Act of 1990 (28 
U.S.C. 133 note) shall, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, be 
authorized under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, and the 
incumbent in that office shall hold the office under section 133 of 
title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP.

    The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the northern district of 
Ohio. The first vacancy in the office of district judge in the northern 
district of Ohio which occurs 5 years or more after the date of the 
enactment of this Act shall not be filled.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO TABLE.

    In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, 
United States Code, will reflect the change in the number of permanent 
district judgeships authorized as a result of section 1, the item 
relating to the northern district of Ohio in such table is amended by 
striking ``11'' and inserting ``12''.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 31244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GARY JEFFERSON BYRD , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:16

- CV

- 1372 USDC No. 6: 92

- CR

- 60025

- 1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
In 1992 Gary Jefferson Byrd, federal prisoner # 07983

- 035, was convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail and sentence d to serve 10 years in prison. The district court concluded that the most recent action he filed to challenge this conviction was an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it on this basis. Byrd now moves this court for a certifica te of appealability (COA), arguing that this action is a writ of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 26, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-31244 Document: 00514171035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2017No. 16

- 31244

2 coram nobis and that he is entitled to relief on his claims concerning his innocence

. Because Byrd is no longer in custody for the 1992 conviction, he cannot challenge it via a § 2255 motio n. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F. 3d 448, 454 n.5 (5th Cir. 2000) . He can, however, bring a writ of coram nobis to challenge this
conviction. See United States v. Dyer , 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). Because this action is best classed as sounding in co ram nobis, not § 2255, Byrd’s COA motion is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. The writ of coram nobis may be used to correct only fundamental errors that result in a complete miscarriage of justice. Dyer , 136 F.3d at 430. Because Byrd’s claims could have been pr esented sooner, he has not met this standard. See id

. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-31244 Document: 00514171035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCIS A. SHARRAK,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-20272

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S “PRO SE MOTION FOR RESENTENCING . . .”

On April 30, 2012, nearly two years after his conviction for tax-related offenses,

the court sentenced pro se Defendant Francis Sharrak to a seventy-two month term of

imprisonment. Eight days later, Defendant filed in this court a motion for resentencing,

indicating, inter alia, that he was mentally and physically unable to present the

information he wanted to during his sentencing hearing. (Def.’s Mot. Resentencing, Dkt.

# 158.) On May 21, 2012, Defendant filed a notice of appeal with the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking appellate review of his “Conviction and all

orders of the Court.” (Notice of Appeal, Dkt. # 159.) “The filing of a notice of appeal is

an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and

divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the

appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); see also

United States v. Garcia-Robles, 562 F.3d 763, 767–68 (6th Cir. 2009). Because

Defendant’s appeal of “all orders of the Court” necessarily includes the court’s
2

sentencing of Defendant, the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Defendant’s pending

motion. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Francis Sharrak’s “Pro Se Motion for

Resentenceing . . .” [Dkt. # 158] is DENIED.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 21, 2012

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

on this date, June 21, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522 

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-20272.SHARRAK.Deny.Mot.Resentencing.jrc.wpd
J

- S28028

- 19

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RYAN JAMES ALLIS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 37 MDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 17, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 08

- CR

- 0000510

- 2018

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J. MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2019 Ryan James Allis appeals from the judg ment of sentence entered on
December 17, 2018 , following his guilty plea to Accident s Involving Death or Personal Injury, Driving While O perating Privilege Suspended or Revoked, and

Reckle ssly Endangering Another Person ( “ REAP ” )

. 1 Allis’s counsel has filed an

Anders 2 brief and a petition to withdraw as counsel. We deny counsel’s
petition to withdraw and remand with instructions.

We do not reach the merits of the appeal at this time because counsel

has not met the requirements to withdraw pursuant to Anders . Among other things, an Anders brief must: (1) “p rovide a summary of the procedural

_________________ __________ _

_____ ____

_______ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3742(a) and 1543(a), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705, respectively.

2 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).J

- S28028

- 19

- 2

-

history and facts, with citations to the record ” and (2) “r efer to anything in

the record that counsel believ es arguably supports the appeal. ”
Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009)

. Counsel maintains that “after a conscientious examination of the entire record,” he believes the appeal is fr ivolous. Anders Br. at 13 (emphasis added). Our review reveals that the notes of testimony from the guilty plea hearing are not part of the certified re cord. Further, it appears that c ounsel
did not request the transcript and that the hearing was never tra nscr ibed. Without this testimony, “[c] ounsel could not have fulfilled his duty to review the entire record for any non

- frivolous issues.” Commonwealth v. Flowers , 113 A. 3d 1246, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2015) (denying petition to withdraw as
counsel and remanding case where counsel failed to include notes of testimony from guilty plea hearing in certified record). Accordingly, we deny counsel’s petition to withdraw and remand for counsel to obtain the missing notes of testimony and to file a new Anders brief and petition to withdraw or an advocate’s brief, within 60 days from the

date of this order.

Petition denied. Case remanded with instructions . Jurisdiction retained.
#### Edward J. Roseneau, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Empire Circuit Company and Others, Appellants.

— Motion to amend decision denied, with ten dollars costs.